Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards in India: Process, Timelines and Grounds for Refusal

Why enforcement, not the award, is the real test

Winning an arbitration abroad is only half the battle if the other side’s assets sit in India. A foreign award is not self-executing here: it has to pass through an Indian court before it can be enforced against a debtor’s property. Over the last decade the Supreme Court has made that journey narrower for award debtors. The live questions are how the process works, how long it takes, and on what limited grounds an award debtor can resist.

This article sets out the legal framework, the step-by-step process, the limitation period, the grounds for refusal under Section 48, the cases that shape enforcement today, and the Supreme Court’s March 2026 decision in Nagaraj V. Mylandla v. PI Opportunities Fund-I. The position is as of 5 November 2026.

Which foreign awards can be enforced?

Foreign awards are enforced under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Chapter I (Sections 44 to 52) covers awards under the New York Convention. Chapter II (Sections 53 to 60) covers awards under the 1927 Geneva Convention.^[1]

Under Section 44, an award qualifies as a “foreign award” only if it meets several conditions. The dispute must arise from a legal relationship considered commercial under Indian law. The award must be made under a written arbitration agreement to which the New York Convention applies. And it must be made in a territory that the Central Government has notified in the Official Gazette as a reciprocating territory.^{[1, 2]} The Supreme Court recorded in Avitel, for example, that Singapore was notified by Gazette Notification S.O. 542(E) of 6 July 1999.^[3] Because the seat decides whether Part II is available at all, checking the notified list should be the first step, and ideally it is done when the arbitration clause is drafted. An award from a seat that has not been notified falls outside Chapter I and needs separate advice.

The dividing line with domestic law. A foreign award cannot be set aside by an Indian court under Section 34. Part I of the Act does not apply to arbitrations seated outside India, as the Constitution Bench held in BALCO (2012).^[4] The Indian court can only recognise and enforce the award, or refuse on the limited Section 48 grounds. Any challenge to the award itself belongs at the seat.^[5]

The enforcement process, step by step

1. Confirm eligibility. Check the notified territory, the commercial nature of the dispute, and that the award is final and binding at the seat.

2. Check limitation. The clock is three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (see below). Do not wait for the debtor’s challenge at the seat to finish before taking this seriously.

3. File in the High Court. The application is made to the High Court. “Court” is defined in the explanation to Section 47, so confirm the correct High Court before filing, and look at where the debtor’s assets are. Under Section 47 the applicant must produce the original or a duly authenticated copy of the award, the original or a certified copy of the arbitration agreement, and such evidence as is necessary to prove that the award is a foreign award; if either document is not in English, a certified English translation is also needed.^[1] In Gemini Bay the Supreme Court held that Section 47 is procedural. The award holder need only prove that the award is a foreign award, and does not have to lead substantive evidence that a non-signatory is bound by it.^[2]

4. Notice and objections. The award debtor is served and may object under Section 48. Enforcement may be refused only if the debtor “furnishes to the court proof” of a Section 48(1) ground, so the burden is on the debtor, and the court does not review the merits.^[5]

5. Decision. If no Section 48 ground is made out, the court holds the award enforceable. Under Section 49 it is then deemed to be a decree of that court.^[1]

6. Execution. The deemed decree is executed like any other decree, through attachment of assets and the other processes of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. Appeals. Under Section 50 an appeal lies against an order refusing to enforce a foreign award, but not against an order enforcing it. As the Supreme Court noted in Vijay Karia, the debtor’s only recourse after an order enforcing the award is a special leave petition, which is discretionary.^[5]

Security and interim protection. Where an application to set aside or suspend the award is pending at the seat, Section 48(3) lets the Indian court adjourn the enforcement hearing and, on the award holder’s application, order the other side to furnish suitable security.^[1] Interim relief under Section 9 may also be available in India in aid of a foreign-seated arbitration, subject to any contrary agreement between the parties. In the Avitel litigation, the Bombay High Court directed the award debtors to deposit US$ 60 million in Section 9 proceedings while enforcement was pending.^[3] Award holders should be ready to ask for both.

Limitation and how long enforcement takes

Limitation. In Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd. (16 September 2020) the Supreme Court settled a split among High Courts. An application to enforce a foreign award under Sections 47 and 49 is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which gives three years “from when the right to apply accrues”. The twelve-year period under Article 136 applies to execution of a decree of a civil court, and does not apply to this first-stage application.^[6]

The facts of Vedanta show why the point matters. The award was dated 18 January 2011 and the enforcement petition was filed on 14 October 2014, more than three years later. The Government argued that time ran from the award. The claimants argued that their right to apply accrued only later, when the Government issued a show-cause notice on 10 July 2014 demanding US $77 million under the production sharing contract. The Court held that the petition was filed within limitation under Article 137.^[6] The result turned on those facts. The safe course is to file promptly and not to rely on a later accrual date.

Duration. We have not found any statutory deadline in Part II for deciding an enforcement application, so duration depends on the High Court’s docket and how hard the debtor fights, and published estimates are unreliable. The reported cases show the range. In Vedanta the award of January 2011 was finally upheld in September 2020.^[6] In Avitel the SIAC award dated 27 September 2014 reached the Supreme Court’s final decision in March 2024, and the Court itself stressed the need for early enforcement “without showing any further indulgence to the award debtors”.^[3] In Nagaraj, where the award was made in July 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions in March 2026.^{[7, 8]} Execution against assets then runs separately and depends on how readily assets can be traced and attached.

Grounds for refusing enforcement under Section 48

Section 48 mirrors Article V of the New York Convention. The grounds are exhaustive: a court cannot refuse enforcement on any ground outside the list. They fall into two groups.^{[1, 5]}

Grounds the debtor must prove (Section 48(1)). (a) A party was under some incapacity, or the arbitration agreement was invalid under the law chosen by the parties or the law of the seat. (b) The debtor was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case. (c) The award deals with matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, with severance where the parts can be separated. (d) The composition of the tribunal or the procedure did not follow the parties’ agreement or, failing that, the law of the seat. (e) The award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the seat.^[1]

Grounds the court may raise itself (Section 48(2)). The subject matter is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Indian law, or enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of India.^[5]

How narrow is public policy? Very. Since the 2015 amendment, Explanation 1 to Section 48(2) provides that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India only if its making was induced or affected by fraud or corruption (or was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81), it contravenes the fundamental policy of Indian law, or it conflicts with the most basic notions of morality or justice. Explanation 2 adds that the test of contravention of fundamental policy “shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute”.^[5] Patent illegality, which can be used against domestic awards under Section 34, is outside the scope of challenge to a foreign award.^[5]

A residual discretion. Section 48 says enforcement “may” be refused. In Vijay Karia the Supreme Court held that the word can, depending on the ground, leave the court a limited residual discretion to enforce even where a ground is made out, for example where a ground concerns party interest alone and no prejudice has been caused. There is no such discretion where the objection goes to the tribunal’s jurisdiction, or where the award was induced by fraud or corruption, violates fundamental policy or conflicts with the most basic notions of morality or justice.^[5]

The case law that shapes enforcement today

Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa (decided 3 July 2013; (2014) 2 SCC 433). The Supreme Court held that the public policy ground for resisting a foreign award is narrower than the ground for setting aside a domestic award, building on Renusagar.^[9] It is routinely cited for the rule that Section 48 does not permit a review of the merits.^[3]

Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi SRL (13 February 2020). A three-judge bench confirmed a strongly pro-enforcement approach and refused to let Section 48 become a route to a merits review. It noted that the award debtors had made no challenge to the award under English arbitration law, though one was available, and brought their objections only when the award came to India. It described the fourteen objections as “speculative litigation with the fond hope that by flinging mud on a foreign arbitral award, some of the mud so flung would stick”, in reality pleas going to the unfairness of the tribunal’s conclusions.^[5]

Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. (10 August 2021). The award, made in a US-seated arbitration under Delaware law, was enforced against an Indian company and an individual, among others, who had not signed the agreement but whom the arbitrator found to be alter egos of the signatory. The Court held that Section 47 is procedural, and that a non-signatory’s objection that it is not bound by the award does not fit within the literal words of Section 48(1)(a), which refers to the “parties”. It left open that a non-signatory might, in an appropriate case, bring its objection under the public policy ground in Section 48(2). The damages awarded did not shock the conscience of the Court, and the appeals were dismissed.^[2]

Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. (March 2024). The award debtors resisted enforcement of a Singapore-seated SIAC award of US$ 60 million for fraudulent misrepresentation, alleging that the presiding arbitrator had failed to disclose a conflict of interest arising from his directorship of another company. The Supreme Court held that arbitral bias can fall within the “most basic notions of morality or justice”, but that the threshold is high, international standards should be applied, and refusal of enforcement should be exceptional. It stressed that the seat court has exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over a bias allegation, and that the debtors had not applied to set the award aside in Singapore within the time available. The High Court’s enforcement order was approved and the appeals dismissed.^[3]

The 2026 ruling: transnational issue estoppel in Nagaraj

Facts. Nagaraj V. Mylandla v. PI Opportunities Fund-I (2026 INSC 298) was decided on 25 March 2026. It arose from a shareholders’ agreement between the promoters of a digital payments company and private equity investors, with Indian governing law, SIAC rules and a Singapore seat. The tribunal held in July 2024 that the agreement imposed an absolute obligation on the company and its promoters to provide an exit, and awarded damages equivalent to the contractual exit price, with a fallback strategic sale if the damages were not paid.^{[7, 8, 10]}

The route to the Supreme Court. The promoters challenged the award in the Singapore courts, arguing that it amounted to an impermissible buy-back of shares under the Companies Act, 2013 and that the investors had waived their rights. The challenge failed. In India, the Madras High Court held the award enforceable and applied transnational issue estoppel, distinguishing an investor’s surrender of shares on receipt of damages from a company buy-back, and imposed costs on the promoters. Published reports differ on the amount, so the order should be checked.^{[8, 10]}

The Supreme Court’s decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions and adopted the doctrine. Where a competent seat court has conclusively decided an issue between the same parties, the debtor cannot re-argue it before the Indian enforcement court by relabelling it as a public policy objection under Section 48. As analysed in SCC Times, the enforcement court asks whether a competent foreign court decided the issue on the merits, whether the parties are the same, whether the issue is identical, and whether it was fully contested and conclusively determined.^[7] The decision is reported as the first time the Supreme Court has recognised the doctrine in this setting.^{[7, 10]}

A note of caution. The doctrine is a threshold filter, not a blanket bar. Commentators stress that it does not displace the public policy ground itself: a foreign court’s ruling does not decide what Indian public policy requires, so a genuinely independent Section 48(2)(b) objection remains open.^{[8, 10, 11]} One analysis reports that the judgment discusses exceptions to the doctrine; their exact scope should be read from the judgment.^[11] The sources we reviewed also differ on whether the Supreme Court itself ruled on the distinction between surrender of shares and a buy-back, or rested on estoppel alone.^{[7, 8, 10]} We would expect the boundaries to be tested in later cases, so the decision should be read with care.

Practical guidance

For award holders. Check the notified-territory position before you commence arbitration, not after you win. Prepare the Section 47 documents early (authenticated award, agreement and any translation) and file well within limitation. Identify Indian assets and the right High Court at the outset. Where a seat-court challenge is pending, ask for security under Section 48(3), and consider Section 9 relief against dissipation of assets. Treat the seat court as the first line of defence: if the debtor has already lost there, Nagaraj gives you an estoppel argument against objections that the seat court has decided.

For award debtors. If you have a ground to attack the award, take it to the seat first and on time. Avitel and Vijay Karia both treated the failure to do so as telling, and after Nagaraj an objection that has lost at the seat will be very hard to run again in India. Confine your Indian objections to genuine Section 48 grounds, supported by proof. Merits arguments will not succeed, and repackaged objections invite costs. Raise public policy only where there is a real fundamental-policy issue and not an ordinary statutory inconsistency.

For contract drafters. Choose a seat in a notified reciprocating territory, and a seat whose courts you trust to hear any challenge promptly. Check the governing law and any exit, buy-back or put-option remedy against Indian company-law restrictions, since that is where public policy objections are most likely to be raised.

For related reading, see our article on mandatory pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act. Our arbitration and ADR practice advises on drafting arbitration clauses and on enforcing and resisting awards. This article is general information, not legal advice.

Frequently asked questions

Which law governs enforcement of foreign awards in India? Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Sections 44 to 52 for New York Convention awards and Sections 53 to 60 for Geneva Convention awards.

Can an Indian court set aside a foreign award? No. Section 34 does not apply to foreign awards. The Indian court can enforce the award or refuse enforcement on the grounds in Section 48, and a challenge to the award itself must be made at the seat.

What is the limitation period for enforcing a foreign award? Three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, running from when the right to apply accrues, as held in Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd. (2020). File promptly.

Can enforcement be refused if the award is wrong on the merits? No. Section 48 does not permit a review of the merits, and the public policy ground is confined to fraud or corruption, contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law, and conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.

Is there an appeal from an order enforcing a foreign award? Not under Section 50, which allows an appeal only from an order refusing enforcement. The debtor’s remedy is a special leave petition to the Supreme Court.

What is transnational issue estoppel? The principle, recognised by the Supreme Court in Nagaraj (25 March 2026), that an award debtor cannot re-argue before the Indian enforcement court an issue that a competent seat court has conclusively decided between the same parties.

Conclusion

India’s enforcement regime for foreign awards is now clearly pro-enforcement. The grounds for refusal are narrow, the burden rests on the debtor, the merits are off limits, and after Nagaraj issues finally decided at the seat will rarely get a second hearing in India.

The main risks for award holders are now procedural: a seat that is not notified, a missed limitation period, or slow execution against assets. Planning for these at the drafting stage, and moving promptly after the award, is the best way to turn an award into recovery.