Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India is governed by Part II, Chapter I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Sections 44 to 52), which gives effect to the New York Convention. A party holding a foreign award produces it to the High Court under Section 47, and once the court is satisfied that none of the narrow objections in Section 48 applies, Section 49 treats the award as a decree that can be executed. Enforcement is refused only on the limited Section 48 grounds, the burden sits on the party resisting, and the public policy exception is read narrowly after Renusagar and Shri Lal Mahal. The petition must be filed within three years of the right to apply accruing, the limit the Supreme Court fixed in Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd.
This article sets out how foreign arbitral awards are enforced in India, from what qualifies as a foreign award under Section 44 to the documents you file, the Section 48 grounds to refuse, the limitation period, and the reforms proposed in 2024.
The 1996 Act runs on two tracks. A domestic award, and an award made in an India-seated arbitration, is enforced under Section 36 in Part I. A foreign award, made in a country notified under the New York or Geneva Conventions, is enforced under Part II. The two routes are not interchangeable, and the first thing a party has to get right is which track its award sits on. For the wider map of how arbitration works before an award is even made, iPleaders’ overview of what arbitration is and how the process runs sets the context.
A foreign award is not executed the moment it lands. It goes through a recognition filter first: the court checks whether the award clears the conditions in Sections 47 and 48, and only then does it become a decree the court will execute. That extra filter is the price of cross-border enforcement, and it is also where most of the litigation happens.
What has changed over the last decade is the temperature of that filter. A run of Supreme Court decisions between 2020 and 2024 has pushed Indian enforcement firmly towards a pro-enforcement posture, narrowing the grounds on which a court can turn a foreign award away. This article tracks that current position, section by section, with the case law that decides each point.
Foreign awards and the New York Convention under Part II of the 1996 Act
Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is the enforcement code for foreign awards, and it is split in two. Chapter I, Sections 44 to 52, gives effect to the New York Convention of 1958, the treaty under which the overwhelming majority of foreign awards reach India. Chapter II, Sections 53 to 60, carries the older Geneva Convention of 1927, which now matters only for the shrinking set of countries bound by Geneva but not by New York. In practice, when lawyers talk about enforcing a foreign award in India, they mean the New York Convention route.
What makes an award a “foreign award” under Section 44?
A foreign award under Section 44 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is an award on differences arising out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, that Indian law treats as commercial, made on or after 11 October 1960 under a written arbitration agreement to which the New York Convention applies, in a territory the Central Government has notified as a reciprocating one. Read that definition as a checklist, because every limb is a potential objection at the enforcement stage.
Two limbs do most of the work. The relationship has to be commercial under the law in force in India, which keeps purely personal or non-commercial disputes out of Part II. And the award must come from a notified reciprocating territory: India entered the reciprocity reservation when it acceded to the Convention, so an award from a country the Central Government has not notified in the Official Gazette is not a “foreign award” for enforcement here, however valid it may be at its seat. The mistake we see most often is a party assuming that any overseas award qualifies. It does not.
New York Convention awards versus Geneva Convention awards
The two conventions are not applied together to the same award. An award is enforced either under the New York Convention chapter or the Geneva Convention chapter, depending on the treaty status of the country where it was made, and Section 44 read with the First Schedule fixes which one. Because almost every major arbitral seat is now a New York Convention state, the Geneva chapter is largely of historical interest, though it stays on the statute book for completeness.
One recent question was whether two Indian parties could ever produce a foreign award at all. The Supreme Court answered yes. In PASL Wind Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. GE Power Conversion (India) Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 7 SCC 1, two companies incorporated in India had agreed to arbitrate in Zurich, and the Court held that the resulting award was a foreign award enforceable under Part II. Party nationality does not decide whether an award is foreign; the seat does. That distinction between the seat of the arbitration and the mere venue of hearings is one iPleaders unpacks in its guide to seat, venue and place of arbitration, and LawSikho’s 2026 guide to seat versus venue works through the practical drafting side.
How are foreign arbitral awards enforced in India?
Foreign arbitral awards are enforced in India through a single court proceeding that folds recognition and execution together. The award-holder files an enforcement petition, produces the documents Section 47 requires, and asks the court to hold the award enforceable; if the court is satisfied that none of the Section 48 objections stands, Section 49 provides that the award is deemed to be a decree of that court. From that point the award is executed like any other decree, using the machinery of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
It helps to see this as two conceptual stages inside one application. First the court recognises the award, meaning it checks the Section 47 documents and rules on any Section 48 objection the losing side raises. Then, and only then, the award becomes executable. There is no separate suit to be filed to convert the award into a decree, a point settled long ago in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., (2001) 6 SCC 356, which read Sections 47 to 49 as a self-contained single-window process.
This is where the contrast with a domestic award is sharpest. A domestic award under Section 36 is enforceable as a decree once the challenge window under Section 34 closes, with no recognition stage at all; the debtor has to move separately to set it aside or stay it. A foreign award reverses the sequence: recognition comes first, and the debtor’s objections are heard before the award becomes executable. iPleaders’ companion guide to enforcement of arbitral awards under Section 36 works through the domestic side in full, and reading the two together is the quickest way to see why the routes diverge.
Is it really one application, or two?
It is one application, though the older two-stage habit of thought still lingers in some pleadings. Before the 2015 amendment, parties sometimes treated recognition and execution as separate steps requiring separate filings. The current position is that a single enforcement petition does both jobs: the same court that recognises the award goes on to execute it, and the award-holder does not restart the process in a fresh forum once recognition is granted. That consolidation is a large part of why enforcing a foreign award, though slower than enforcing a domestic one, is no longer the procedural marathon it once was.
How to enforce a foreign award in India
The single-window route under Part II, Sections 44 to 49 (New York Convention)
Confirm the award qualifies under Section 44
Check it is a commercial award from a notified reciprocating territory under the New York Convention. If not, Part II does not apply.
File the enforcement petition in the High Court
Produce the Section 47 documents: the original or authenticated award, the arbitration agreement, and evidence the award is foreign. Add a certified translation if it is not in English.
The court hears any Section 48 objection
The party resisting must prove a Section 48 ground. The burden is on that party, and there is no review of the award on its merits.
The award is deemed a decree under Section 49
Once the court is satisfied that no ground stands, Section 49 treats the award as a decree of that court.
Execute the award, within three years
Execute as a decree under Order XXI of the CPC. File within 3 years of the right to apply accruing (Article 137, per Vedanta).
Sources: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ss. 44, 47-49; Limitation Act, 1963, Art. 137; Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd., (2020) 10 SCC 1iPleaders
Which court enforces a foreign award, and what must be filed under Section 47?
Enforcement of a foreign award is a matter for the High Court, not the district court. The Explanation to Section 47, as it stands after the 2015 amendment, defines the “Court” for a foreign-award enforcement as the High Court exercising original civil jurisdiction, or the High Court that would hear appeals from the subordinate court that could have decided the subject-matter as a suit. Where the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 applies, the petition goes to the Commercial Division of the High Court. So the forum is higher than for a domestic award, and that is deliberate: Parliament wanted cross-border enforcement handled by courts with commercial benches.
Section 47 also fixes what the award-holder must produce. Three things go in at the time of application: the original award or a duly authenticated copy in the manner required by the law of the country where it was made, the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy, and such evidence as may be necessary to prove that the award is a foreign award. If the award or agreement is in a language other than English, a certified translation has to be filed alongside.
That documentary threshold is lighter than it looks, and the courts have kept it that way. The evidence needed to prove an award is foreign is not an invitation to relitigate the dispute; it is proof of the award’s provenance and the treaty status of the seat. Worth flagging, though, is the stamping question that trips up domestic enforcement: a foreign award is not stamped in the same way an Indian award is, so the award-holder should take advice on the stamp position for the specific award rather than assume the domestic rules apply wholesale.
Grounds for refusing enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under Section 48
Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards can be refused only on the grounds set out in Section 48, and nowhere else. The provision splits the grounds in two. Under Section 48(1), the party resisting enforcement must furnish proof of one of five defects: incapacity of a party or invalidity of the arbitration agreement under the law the parties chose or the law of the seat; lack of proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the proceedings, or a party otherwise being unable to present its case; the award dealing with a difference beyond the scope of the submission; the composition of the tribunal or the arbitral procedure not being in accordance with the parties’ agreement or the law of the seat; and the award not yet being binding, or having been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under whose law, it was made.
Under Section 48(2), the court may refuse enforcement on two further grounds that it can consider on its own: that the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Indian law, or that enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of India. These are the grounds a court can raise even if the losing party does not, because they protect the forum rather than the party.
Two features of Section 48 decide how these grounds actually play out. The burden is on the party resisting enforcement, not on the party seeking it, which reflects the pro-enforcement bias built into the New York Convention. And the section says the court “may” refuse, not “shall”. In Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi SRL, (2020) 11 SCC 1, the Supreme Court read that “may” as leaving the court a residual discretion to enforce an award even where a ground is technically made out, at least where the breach is not fundamental. The Court also held that it would interfere with a High Court order enforcing a foreign award only in the rare case of a blatant disregard of Section 48, and that a party generally cannot save up an objection it could have raised at the seat and spring it at the enforcement stage. If you are drafting the underlying cross-border contract, this is the moment to build in the protections that keep an award out of Section 48 trouble, a discipline Skill Arbitrage covers in its guide to drafting contracts for foreign clients that survive enforcement.
Can enforcement be refused because the award is wrong on the merits?
No. A foreign award cannot be refused enforcement merely because an Indian court would have decided the dispute differently, or thinks the tribunal got the facts or the law wrong. In Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 753, the Supreme Court held that “perversity” of the award is not a ground to resist enforcement under Section 48, and that the Section 47 evidentiary requirements go to proving the award is foreign, not to reopening its correctness. The Court reaffirmed the same limit in Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd., 2024 INSC 242, holding that Section 48 permits no second look at the merits and that an error in a foreign award is not, without more, a breach of public policy. So the answer a losing party least wants to hear is the settled one: enforcement is not an appeal.
Section 48: the only grounds to refuse a foreign award
Enforcement is refused on these grounds and no others; the public policy ground is read narrowly
| Ground to refuse enforcement | Raised by |
|---|---|
| A party was under some incapacity, or the arbitration agreement was not valid | 48(1) party |
| No proper notice of the arbitrator or the proceedings, or the party was unable to present its case | 48(1) party |
| The award goes beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration | 48(1) party |
| The tribunal or the procedure did not follow the parties’ agreement or the law of the seat | 48(1) party |
| The award is not yet binding, or has been set aside or suspended at the seat | 48(1) party |
| The subject matter is not arbitrable under Indian law | 48(2) court |
| Enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of India | 48(2) court |
The burden is on the party resisting; “may refuse” leaves a residual discretion (Vijay Karia). Public policy is read narrowly (Renusagar; Shri Lal Mahal), with no review on the merits and no patent-illegality ground.iPleaders
How narrow is the public policy exception under Section 48?
The public policy exception under Section 48(2)(b) is narrow, and it has been deliberately kept that way. The foundational authority is Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644, where the Supreme Court held that enforcement of a foreign award could be refused as contrary to public policy only if it offended the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of India, or justice or morality. That three-part test set the ceiling, and later cases have mostly worked at pulling the ceiling lower rather than raising it.
The key modern clarification came in Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano SpA, (2014) 2 SCC 433. The Court held that the Renusagar categories, and only those categories, govern public policy under Section 48(2)(b), and it overruled the earlier view in Phulchand Exports that had imported the wider domestic public-policy test into foreign-award enforcement. Crucially, Shri Lal Mahal confirmed that a court hearing a Section 48 objection does not review the award on its merits; public policy is not a window through which the merits creep back in.
That leaves one asymmetry worth carrying into any strategy. “Patent illegality” on the face of the award, a ground available against a purely domestic award under Section 34(2A) and explained in Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131, is simply not available against a foreign award. An award-debtor cannot resist a foreign award by arguing that the tribunal misread the contract or misapplied Indian law. Fraud is the narrow live exception: where the making of the award was induced by fraud or corruption, that goes to the fundamental policy of Indian law, and Avitel confirmed that a genuine fraud finding can engage the public policy bar. Short of that, the door is nearly shut.
What is the limitation period for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards?
The limitation period for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India is three years, running from the date the right to apply for enforcement accrues. The Supreme Court settled this in Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd., (2020) 10 SCC 1, holding that a petition to enforce a foreign award is an “application” governed by the residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and not by Article 136, which fixes a twelve-year period for the execution of a decree. A foreign award is not a decree of an Indian civil court until the court recognises it, so Article 136 has nothing to bite on.
This is the point where domestic and foreign awards diverge most sharply, and it catches parties out. A domestic award, treated as a decree under Section 36, is generally worked on the far longer twelve-year execution clock, so an award-holder can afford to be slow. A foreign award gives no such luxury: three years is a short runway when translation, authentication, and the search for the debtor’s Indian assets all eat into it. The practical reality is that the clock should be diarised from the day enforcement first becomes possible, and the petition filed well inside it.
There is a small measure of relief where the delay is genuine. Because enforcement is an application under Article 137, the court can condone a delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on sufficient cause, which it cannot do for the execution of a decree under Article 136. That is a narrow safety net, not a plan, and no award-holder should rely on it in place of filing on time. For the mirror-image position on domestic awards, the twelve-year figure and the reasoning behind it, see the discussion in iPleaders’ guide to enforcement under Section 36 linked above.
Can a foreign award be enforced against a non-signatory?
Yes, a foreign award can be enforced against a party that never signed the arbitration agreement, in defined circumstances. The anchor is Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 753, where the Supreme Court confirmed an award enforced against non-signatories. The Court pointed to the language of Section 46, which makes a foreign award binding on the “persons” as between whom it was made, and read “persons” as wider than the phrase “persons claiming under them” used for domestic awards in Section 35. The width of that word is what lets an award reach beyond the signatories.
The reasoning matters as much as the result. A non-signatory can be bound where the tribunal has found, on doctrines such as alter ego or the group-of-companies principle, that the non-signatory was in substance a party to the bargain. Gemini Bay also held that a non-signatory resisting enforcement cannot demand extra documentary proof under Section 47 beyond what the section actually lists; the burden is on the resisting party to make out a Section 48 ground, not on the award-holder to prove the non-signatory’s liability afresh.
For award-holders, the practical upshot is that a debtor cannot always escape by hiding behind corporate form. A party that has restructured, or routed the real assets through a related entity that never signed, is not automatically beyond reach. On the domestic side the same instinct runs through Cheran Properties Ltd. v. Kasturi and Sons Ltd., (2018) 16 SCC 413, where the Court held that an award binds persons claiming under a party. The reach is real, but it is not unlimited, and it always turns on the specific relationship the tribunal found.
How could the draft Amendment Bill, 2024 change foreign award enforcement?
The draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 could tighten and speed up foreign-award enforcement, but it is a proposal, not law. The Ministry of Law and Justice put the draft out for public consultation, which closed on 3 November 2024, and the Bill has not been enacted as of July 2026. Everything in this section is therefore what the draft proposes, and nothing in it is yet in force; an award-holder acting today still works under Sections 44 to 52 as they stand.
Two proposals bear directly on foreign awards. The draft aims to narrow the grounds on which enforcement can be challenged and to align the statute more closely with the New York Convention, which, if enacted, would reinforce the pro-enforcement direction the Supreme Court has already set through Vijay Karia and Vedanta. The draft also proposes that awards made by an emergency arbitrator be enforceable in India, a gap that currently leaves parties who obtain urgent relief abroad without a clean domestic enforcement route.
The more structural idea is an appellate arbitral tribunal, a second panel of arbitrators to hear challenges that presently go to court. Its effect on foreign awards would be indirect, since Part II enforcement is about recognising an award made abroad rather than challenging it here, but a faster domestic challenge architecture would change the wider enforcement climate. iPleaders’ dedicated tracker of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 follows the status and the detail of each proposal. Until it is passed, treat these as signals of direction, not rules to plan around.
Frequently asked questions
Is a foreign award automatically enforceable in India?
No. A foreign award is not executed automatically; it first has to be recognised by the High Court under Sections 47 and 48. The award-holder files an enforcement petition with the required documents, and only when the court is satisfied that no Section 48 objection stands does Section 49 treat the award as a decree that can be executed. The recognition filter is what separates a foreign award from a domestic one.
What is the difference between enforcing a domestic and a foreign arbitral award?
A domestic award is enforced under Section 36 in a single step: it becomes enforceable as a decree once the Section 34 challenge window closes. A foreign award is enforced under Sections 47 to 49 in a recognition-first process before a High Court, and the debtor’s objections under Section 48 are heard before the award becomes executable. The limitation periods also differ, three years for a foreign award against a much longer period for a domestic one, as explained in iPleaders’ guide to enforcement under Section 36.
Can two Indian parties obtain a foreign award?
Yes. In PASL Wind Solutions v. GE Power Conversion (India), the Supreme Court held that two Indian companies can choose a foreign seat, and the resulting award is a foreign award enforceable under Part II. What makes an award foreign is the seat of the arbitration, not the nationality of the parties.
How long do you have to enforce a foreign award in India?
Three years from when the right to apply for enforcement accrues, following Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd. Enforcement of a foreign award is treated as an application under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, not as the execution of a decree under Article 136. A court can condone a genuine delay under Section 5, but an award-holder should file well within the three years rather than rely on that.
Can a foreign award be refused enforcement on public policy grounds?
Only within the narrow test from Renusagar Power Co. v. General Electric Co., as confirmed in Shri Lal Mahal v. Progetto Grano: the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of India, or justice or morality. The court does not review the merits of the award, and “patent illegality”, a ground against domestic awards, is not available against a foreign award. Fraud or corruption in the making of the award is the main live exception.
Which court do you approach to enforce a foreign award?
The High Court. The Explanation to Section 47 routes foreign-award enforcement to the High Court exercising original civil jurisdiction, or, where the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 applies, to its Commercial Division. This is a higher forum than for a domestic award, which can be executed in any court where the debtor’s assets are located.
References
Case law
- Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd., 2024 INSC 242 (Supreme Court, 4 March 2024)
- Cheran Properties Ltd. v. Kasturi and Sons Ltd., (2018) 16 SCC 413
- Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., (2001) 6 SCC 356
- Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 753 (2021 SCC OnLine SC 572)
- Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd., (2020) 10 SCC 1
- PASL Wind Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. GE Power Conversion (India) Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 7 SCC 1
- Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644
- Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano SpA, (2014) 2 SCC 433
- Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131
- Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi SRL, (2020) 11 SCC 1
Statutes
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sections cited: 2(1)(f), 34(2A), 35, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53 to 60
- Limitation Act, 1963 articles cited: 136, 137; Section 5
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015 routes enforcement of a foreign award to the Commercial Division of the High Court
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provisions cited: execution of a decree
Related reading
- Enforcement of arbitral awards in India under Section 36
- Seat vs venue vs place of arbitration
- Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024
This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified legal practitioner for advice on their specific circumstances.
