How to Enforce a Foreign Arbitration Award in India

An award made in Singapore, London, Paris or another foreign seat is not automatically payable in India. If the losing party has assets in India and does not pay, the award holder must apply to an Indian High Court to have the award recognised and enforced under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which implements the New York Convention. Indian courts have become steadily more supportive of foreign award enforcement, and the grounds on which enforcement can be refused are narrow. But the process has its own rules, and mistakes can cost time.

This guide is for foreign and Indian parties holding awards made outside India against parties with Indian assets, and for Indian parties resisting enforcement. In short: an award made in a New York Convention country that India has notified as a reciprocating territory can be enforced under Sections 44 to 52; the application goes to the High Court with jurisdiction over the debtor's assets; the award holder must file the documents in Section 47; the court can refuse enforcement only on the grounds in Section 48, which the Supreme Court has read narrowly (Vijay Karia v Prysmian, 2020); the application must be filed within three years of the right to apply (Government of India v Vedanta, 2020); and once the court finds the award enforceable, it is deemed a decree of that court and can be executed in the same proceeding.

The key to success is preparation: the right documents, the right court and a clear map of the debtor's assets.

The short answer

The award holder files a petition in the commercial division of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the award debtor has assets, or the subject matter lies, attaching the original award or a duly authenticated copy, the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy, and evidence that the award is a foreign award, with English translations where needed. The debtor is given notice and can object only on the grounds listed in Section 48. If the court rejects the objections, it declares the award enforceable, and under Section 49 the award is deemed a decree of that court. Execution against the assets can proceed in the same proceeding. An order refusing enforcement can be appealed under Section 50; an order allowing it cannot be appealed under the Act, though a petition to the Supreme Court is possible.

Foreign award enforcement at a glance

Which awards qualify

Section 44 defines a foreign award as an award on differences arising out of legal relationships considered commercial under Indian law, made on or after 11 October 1960, in pursuance of a written arbitration agreement to which the New York Convention applies, and in a territory that the Central Government has notified, on being satisfied that reciprocal provisions exist, as a territory to which the Convention applies. India has notified a large number of countries, including the commonly chosen seats such as Singapore, the United Kingdom, France, Hong Kong and the United States.

An award made in a country that is a party to the Convention but has not been notified by India is not a "foreign award" under Part II, and cannot be enforced through this route. The award holder may then have to sue on the award or on the underlying claim in an Indian court. Before relying on Part II, check the notification list. An award made in a foreign seat between two Indian parties is still a foreign award (PASL Wind Solutions v GE Power Conversion, 2021).

Common objections

The grounds in Section 48

Section 48(1) lists grounds the objecting party must prove: incapacity of a party or invalidity of the arbitration agreement; lack of proper notice of the appointment or the proceedings, or inability to present its case; the award deals with matters beyond the submission, though the part within it may be enforced; the composition of the tribunal or the procedure was not in accordance with the agreement or the seat's law; or the award has not yet become binding, or has been set aside or suspended at the seat. Section 48(2) adds two grounds the court may raise on its own: the subject matter is not arbitrable under Indian law, or enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of India.

After the 2015 amendment, the Explanation to Section 48(2) limits public policy to three heads: the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption, or was in violation of the confidentiality or admissibility provisions in Sections 75 and 81; it contravenes the fundamental policy of Indian law; or it conflicts with the most basic notions of morality or justice. The test for fundamental policy does not involve a review on the merits. In Vijay Karia v Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi (2020), the Supreme Court stressed that the grounds are narrow, that enforcement should be refused only in exceptional cases, and that a party cannot use Section 48 as a backdoor appeal on the merits.

How to enforce a foreign award

Time limit and currency

In Government of India v Vedanta Ltd (2020), the Supreme Court held that an application to enforce a foreign award is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and must be filed within three years from when the right to apply accrues. It also held that the award holder can file a single application seeking both enforcement and execution, and that once the court decides the award is enforceable, it can be executed as a decree, which carries the 12-year period for execution.

Foreign awards are usually expressed in foreign currency. In DLF Ltd v Koncar Generators and Motors (2025), the Supreme Court addressed the date for converting the award amount into rupees, linking it to the date when the award becomes enforceable, with part payments converted on the dates they are deposited. The conversion date can make a significant difference where the rupee has moved, and should be addressed in the enforcement petition.

Interim protection while enforcement is pending

Foreign award enforcement can take months, and debtors sometimes use the time to move assets. The award holder has two tools. First, Section 9, which applies to international commercial arbitrations seated abroad under the proviso to Section 2(2), allows the court to grant interim measures, including securing the amount in dispute and attaching property, after the award and before enforcement. Second, where the debtor has applied to set aside or suspend the award at the seat and the Indian court adjourns its decision, Section 48(3) allows the court, on the award holder's application, to order the debtor to give suitable security.

An application for security should show the risk to enforcement: the debtor's financial condition, transfers of assets, or a history of non-payment. Courts have ordered deposits of the award amount or bank guarantees in suitable cases.

Where to file

The Explanation to Section 47 provides that "Court" means the High Court having original jurisdiction to decide questions forming the subject matter of the award if it were a suit, or, in other cases, the High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from subordinate courts. In practice, an award holder can file in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the debtor's assets are located, and courts have accepted that the award holder need not file where the debtor resides if its assets are elsewhere. Where assets are in several states, the award holder can file in one High Court and then transfer the decree for execution, or file where the main assets are.

Because commercial divisions hear these petitions under Section 10 of the Commercial Courts Act, the commercial procedure applies, including timelines for objections.

When the award was challenged at the seat

If the debtor has challenged the award at the seat, it will usually ask the Indian court to adjourn enforcement under Section 48(3) until the challenge is decided. The court has discretion. It considers the strength of the challenge, the time it is likely to take, and the prejudice to each side, and it may adjourn on condition that the debtor gives security. A challenge that appears weak, or that has been pending for years, is less likely to justify an adjournment without security.

If the award is set aside at the seat, that is a ground for refusing enforcement under Section 48(1)(e), and Indian courts will usually respect the seat court's decision. If the challenge fails, enforcement in India proceeds, and the debtor cannot repeat the same arguments under the guise of Section 48, particularly after Nagaraj Mylandla v PI Opportunities (2026), where the Supreme Court considered the effect of findings made in proceedings abroad on enforcement in India.

Resisting enforcement

An Indian party facing enforcement should first examine whether the award is genuinely a foreign award under Section 44, whether the petition was filed within three years, and whether the Section 47 documents are in order. It should then consider whether any Section 48 ground is genuinely available on the facts: lack of notice, a tribunal constituted contrary to the agreement, an award beyond the scope of submission, or a real issue of fraud or corruption. Arguments that the tribunal got the facts or the law wrong will not succeed.

A debtor that has a strong challenge at the seat should pursue it there promptly and seek adjournment in India, offering security if necessary. Settling, especially where the award is large and the grounds are weak, is often the most economical course. See foreign award enforcement.

Non-Convention and non-notified awards

Awards made in countries that are parties to the Geneva Convention of 1927 and notified under Section 53 can be enforced under Chapter II of Part II, though this route is now rarely relevant. Awards from countries that India has not notified under either convention cannot be enforced under Part II. The award holder may then file a suit in India on the award as a cause of action, or on the original claim, relying on the award as evidence. This is slower and subject to Indian limitation law. For parties drafting contracts, choosing a seat in a notified New York Convention country avoids this problem.