NEPAL Law and Practice Contributed by: Purna Man Shakya, Prakrit Shrestha and Dechen Gurung, Reliance Law Firm
– mere disagreement with the tribunal’s factual or legal conclusions will not.
A foreign award is enforced under Section 34. The applicant petitions the High Court with the original or a certified copy of the award and arbitration agreement, with a certified Nepali translation if needed. Where Nepal and the award’s country of origin are both party to a relevant treaty such as the New York Convention, the High Court will recognise and forward the award to the District Court for enforcement, provided: • the Section 34 (2) conditions are met – proper appointment and procedure, timely notice, an award confined to the matters referred, finality under the law of the seat, no bar under the peti - tioner’s or the seat’s law and an application filed within 90 days; and • none of the Section 34 (4) grounds for refusal apply – non-arbitrability under Nepali law or conflict with public policy. Because of the reciprocity reservation, the applicant must also show Nepal is recognised as a reciprocating jurisdiction by the courts of the seat. Failure to do so proved fatal in Sanghi Brothers (see 12.1 New York Convention ), where the Supreme Court declined enforcement because the petitioner could not show Nepal had been notified in India’s offi - cial gazette as a reciprocating territory. The Arbitration Act does not expressly address an award set aside, or set-aside proceedings pending, at the seat; the 2025 amendment addresses only the domestic position (see 2.2 Changes to National Law ). 12.3 Approach of the Courts Nepali courts apply a narrow, pro-enforcement con - struction of the public-policy ground for refusing rec - ognition and enforcement, whether under Section 30 (3)(b) for a domestic set-aside application or under Section 34 (4)(b) for a foreign award. The case law traces a consistent divide between what will and will not justify refusal. Amadeus IT Group SA (Case No 081-FJ-0032,2025) shows the courts favouring enforcement where the statutory conditions are met. The High Court, Patan recognised an award rendered by a three-member ICC tribunal seated in Singapore, finding the award final,
12. Enforcement of an Award 12.1 New York Convention
Nepal acceded to the 1958 New York Convention on 4 March 1998, following a declaration of accession by the House of Representatives published in the Nepal Gazette on 27 September 1997. The Convention entered into force for Nepal on 31 May 1998. Nepal’s accession is subject to the two reservations expressly permitted by Article I(3) of the Convention: • reciprocity – Nepal will recognise and enforce only awards made in the territory of another contracting state; and • commerciality – the Convention applies only to dis - putes arising out of legal relationships considered commercial under Nepali law. In Sanghi Brothers (NKP 2022, DN 10904), the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s refusal to enforce an Indian arbitral award due to the absence of formally established reciprocity. Nepal is not a contracting state to the 1965 ICSID Convention; it signed but never ratified it. Nepal has nonetheless appeared as a respondent in ICSID Addi - tional Facility proceedings brought under a bilateral investment treaty, most notably the Axiata / Ncell pro - ceedings under the Nepal-UK bilateral investment treaty of 1993 (see 1.2 Key Industries ), which Nepal successfully defended. 12.2 Enforcement Procedure A domestic award is enforced under Section 32. If the losing party does not comply voluntarily within the 45-day period allowed by Section 31, the successful party may petition the District Court within 30 days of that period’s expiry. The District Court must, ordinar - ily within 30 days, enforce the award as if it were its own judgment, subject to the 0.5% enforcement fee prescribed by Section 41.
641 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook