- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Technology and Law Firm industries
- Introduction: The Practical Reality of Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards in India
India's arbitration jurisprudence has, over the last two decades, steadily evolved towards a pro-enforcement regime, particularly in the context of foreign arbitral awards. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"), which incorporates India's obligations under the New York Convention, reflects a legislative intent to minimise judicial interference and facilitate enforcement of foreign awards with limited scrutiny.
Indian courts, including the Supreme Court and several High Courts, have repeatedly reiterated that objections to enforcement under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act are narrow, restrictive, and incapable of reopening the merits of the dispute. Yet, despite this settled legal position, enforcement proceedings are not entirely insulated from the systemic delays that continue to affect the Indian judicial system.
This gap between doctrinal clarity and practical enforcement is most acutely felt by foreign award-holders, who often approach Indian courts after successfully completing swift and time-bound institutional arbitrations abroad. The resulting delay at the enforcement stage can be commercially frustrating, particularly when award-debtors adopt dilatory tactics to resist or postpone payment.
From a practitioner's perspective, one lesson has emerged with consistent clarity, early and strategic use of interim reliefs during enforcement proceedings can decisively influence outcomes. This article examines the most effective tools available to award-holders at the preliminary stages of enforcement to protect their interests and enhance the likelihood of successful recovery.
- Enforcement of Foreign Awards as Decrees under Indian Law
Foreign arbitral awards, once brought for enforcement in India, are executed in the same manner as domestic decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"). The Arbitration Act expressly provides that an arbitral award, whether domestic or foreign, is enforceable as a decree of the court.
Consequently, enforcement proceedings for foreign awards attract the procedural framework of Order XXI of the CPC, which governs execution of decrees and orders. This framework empowers courts to pass a range of consequential and facilitative directions to ensure satisfaction of the decree.
However, award-debtors frequently argue that these execution powers cannot be invoked until the court formally records satisfaction that the foreign award is enforceable under Section 49 of the Arbitration Act, following adjudication of objections under Section 48.
This argument is often supported by reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., which delineates the stages of enforcement of a foreign award. The judgment clarifies that the court must first determine enforceability, after which the award is deemed to be a decree.
What is frequently overlooked, however, is that Fuerst Day Lawson does not prohibit courts from passing interim or protective directions during the pendency of Section 48 proceedings. The judgment merely explains procedural sequencing; it does not impose a bar on interim judicial intervention.
- The Necessity of Interim Reliefs During Section 48 Proceedings
If courts were to abstain from granting any interim protection until Section 48 objections are finally decided, foreign arbitral awards would be reduced to paper decrees, vulnerable to deliberate asset dissipation by award-debtors.
Section 48 proceedings, despite their limited scope, can take considerable time to conclude. During this period, an award-debtor may alienate assets, restructure holdings, or create third-party interests, thereby rendering eventual execution ineffective even if enforcement is allowed.
Such an outcome would be fundamentally inconsistent with the pro-enforcement bias of the New York Convention, which Indian courts have repeatedly recognised. The Supreme Court has consistently held that unless an award-debtor clearly establishes a ground under Section 48, the foreign award must be enforced, and courts cannot reassess the merits or re-appreciate evidence.
In this context, interim reliefs are not an exception to enforcement, they are an essential component of it.
- Seeking Disclosure of Assets under Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC
One of the most effective enforcement tools available to an award-holder is an application seeking disclosure of assets by the award-debtor.
Order XXI Rule 41(2) of the CPC empowers the executing court to direct a judgment-debtor to file an affidavit disclosing its assets where a decree remains unsatisfied for thirty days. Since arbitral awards are enforceable as decrees, this provision applies squarely to foreign awards as well.
Award-debtors frequently resist such applications by arguing that disclosure cannot be directed until the court is satisfied that the foreign award is enforceable under Section 49 of the Arbitration Act. This contention is premised on the assertion that a foreign award does not attain the status of a decree until Section 48 objections are adjudicated.
From a practical standpoint, such an argument is deeply flawed. Asset disclosure does not amount to execution; it merely identifies the asset base against which execution may be pursued if enforcement is permitted. Denying disclosure at this stage would actively facilitate asset concealment and frustrate enforcement.
- Interim Disclosure Does Not Prejudge Enforceability of the Award
Courts have increasingly recognised that directing disclosure of assets during the pendency of Section 48 objections does not prejudge the enforceability of the foreign award.
Disclosure is a neutral and facilitative step. It neither results in attachment nor compels payment. It simply preserves the efficacy of the enforcement process by ensuring transparency.
Interpreting Section 49 in a manner that prevents even interim disclosure would undermine both the Arbitration Act and India's international commitments under the New York Convention. Courts have therefore shown increasing willingness to allow disclosure applications to proceed alongside Section 48 objections.
- Ensuring Substantive and Meaningful Compliance with Disclosure Directions
In practice, award-debtors often attempt to dilute the effectiveness of disclosure orders by filing evasive or incomplete affidavits. Assets are disclosed without particulars, locations, valuations, or supporting documentation. Bank accounts are referred to without account numbers or balances.
Indian courts, particularly the Delhi High Court, have consistently taken a strict view of such conduct. It has been held that disclosure affidavits must contain complete, precise, and verifiable information. Vague disclosures are treated as non-compliance.
Courts have directed award-debtors to file revised affidavits where disclosures lack credibility or detail. In some cases, courts have gone further and directed partial deposits with the court registry, particularly where bank balances are disclosed but payment is avoided.
Judicial observations emphasise that award-debtors cannot engage in "paper compliance" or "hide and seek" with enforcement courts.
- Strategic Value of Asset Disclosure for Award-Holders
From an enforcement strategy perspective, asset disclosure serves multiple purposes. It enables award-holders to identify executable assets and plan attachment proceedings effectively. It also exerts commercial pressure on award-debtors, particularly corporate entities that are reluctant to publicly disclose financial details.
Importantly, where disclosure affidavits reveal insufficient assets, award-holders gain a strong factual foundation to seek protective injunctions restraining further alienation of assets.
In many cases, serious enforcement pressure at this stage prompts negotiated settlements or voluntary payments, thereby avoiding prolonged execution proceedings.
- Jurisdictional Objections Cannot Override Disclosure Obligations
Award-debtors frequently attempt to stall enforcement by raising objections to the territorial jurisdiction of the executing court while simultaneously resisting asset disclosure.
Indian courts have firmly rejected this approach. It has been held that an award-debtor cannot suppress information regarding the location of assets and then argue that the court lacks territorial jurisdiction. Permitting such conduct would allow a party to benefit from its own wrongdoing.
Courts have therefore directed award-debtors to comply with disclosure directions before jurisdictional objections are considered, thereby preventing abuse of process.
- Interim Injunctions to Prevent Alienation of Assets
Another critical enforcement tool is the grant of interim injunctions restraining the award-debtor from alienating assets.
Unlike domestic awards, where Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act mandates deposit of the award amount for stay, Part II of the Act contains no equivalent safeguard for foreign awards. While foreign awards cannot be challenged on merits in India, enforcement objections can still delay recovery without any requirement of security.
To address this imbalance, Indian courts have increasingly granted interim injunctions during enforcement proceedings to preserve the award-holder's rights.
- Grant of Ad-Interim Injunctions at Early Stages of Enforcement
Indian High Courts have, in several cases, granted ad-interim injunctions restraining award-debtors from transferring or encumbering assets even on the first date of hearing.
Courts have held that unless grounds under Section 48 are prima facie established, the foreign award must be presumed enforceable, warranting interim protection. Without such protection, there exists a real risk that the award may be rendered worthless.
Injunctions have been granted in respect of immovable properties, commercial assets, and shareholdings, often notwithstanding pending objections on jurisdiction or maintainability.
- Injunctions Against Corporate Restructuring and Demergers
In particularly compelling cases, courts have extended interim protection to restrain corporate restructuring exercises that could dilute the award-holder's recovery prospects.
In one notable instance, the Delhi High Court stayed a proposed demerger pending before the National Company Law Tribunal, noting the absence of any credible proposal by the award-debtor to satisfy the award. The court's intervention ultimately resulted in full payment of the award amount.
Such orders demonstrate the judiciary's willingness to look beyond formal compliance and assess the substantive impact of corporate actions on enforcement.
- Scope and Limits of Blanket Injunction Orders
While courts have, in exceptional cases, passed blanket injunctions restraining award-debtors from dealing with any assets without court permission, such orders are not routine. Given their onerous nature, courts generally prefer asset-specific injunctions tailored to the facts of each case.
This makes it crucial for award-holders to identify and plead known assets with reasonable specificity at the enforcement stage.
- Importance of Detailed Asset Schedules in Enforcement Petitions
From a practitioner's standpoint, filing a comprehensive asset schedule along with the enforcement petition significantly strengthens the case for interim relief.
Even partial information, such as known properties, operational assets, or group structures, can assist the court in crafting effective protective orders. Preparedness at this stage often determines the speed and effectiveness of enforcement.
- Strategic Considerations for Practitioners
Effective enforcement of foreign awards in India requires careful strategic planning. Forum selection is critical, as some High Courts have developed more consistent pro-enforcement jurisprudence. Timing of disclosure and injunction applications can materially affect outcomes.
Equally important is specificity in relief sought. Tailored, fact-driven prayers are more likely to succeed than generic enforcement applications. Robust documentation demonstrating the risk of asset dissipation further enhances the prospects of interim protection.
- Conclusion: Converting Enforcement into Effective Recovery
The enforcement landscape for foreign arbitral awards in India has matured significantly. Courts are increasingly conscious of the practical challenges faced by award-holders and are willing to deploy procedural tools to prevent frustration of legitimate claims.
For practitioners, enforcement is no longer a passive or mechanical process. It requires proactive strategy, early intervention, and a nuanced understanding of procedural law.
By effectively utilising asset disclosure mechanisms, resisting jurisdictional abuse, and securing timely interim injunctions, award-holders can transform enforcement proceedings from prolonged litigation into meaningful commercial recovery.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
