Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards in India: Progress, Challenges and the Road Ahead

The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India has emerged as a critical topic of deliberation in recent years, reflecting the country's growing role in international commerce and its commitment to fostering a business-friendly environment. As India continues to increasingly attract foreign investments and engage in cross-border transactions, the need for a reliable mechanism to enforce foreign arbitral awards has exacerbated. The present article seeks to analyze the current state of foreign award enforcement in India, examining recent legal developments, persistent challenges, and potential future directions.

?

Legal Framework and Judicial Interpretation

India's legal framework for enforcing foreign arbitral awards has undergone significant evolution, primarily governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act"). This legislation, which incorporates the principles of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958, has been a cornerstone in shaping India's approach to international arbitration. The Act has seen notable amendments in the year ?2015, 2019, and most recently in 2021, each aimed at enhancing India's standing as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. While the 2015 amendment acted towards limiting the scope of ‘public policy’ as a ground for refusing enforcement, the 2019 amendment refined the arbitration landscape by establishing the Arbitration Council of India. The 2021 amendment then sought to address concerns about fraudulent awards by allowing for unconditional stays on enforcement if the court finds that the arbitration agreement or award was induced by fraud or corruption.

Key provisions of the Act governing foreign award enforcement include Section 44, which defines a 'foreign award',[1] Section 48, outlining grounds for refusing enforcement,[2] and Section 47, detailing the enforcement procedure.[3] The interpretation and application of these provisions have been significantly shaped by judicial decisions, creating a more nuanced and predictable enforcement regime.

Indian courts have played a crucial role in shaping the enforcement regime through their interpretations of the Act. The judicial approach has generally evolved towards a more pro-enforcement stance, albeit with some inconsistencies. In this regard, the interpretation of 'public policy' as a ground for refusing enforcement of awards has been a contentious issue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. (1994) narrowly construed this ground, limiting it to fundamental policy of Indian law, interests of India, and justice or morality.[4] Subsequent judgments have further refined this interpretation, with Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa (2014) excluding 'patent illegality' from the scope of public policy for foreign awards,[5] and NAFED v. Alimenta S.A. (2020)?reaffirming the narrow interpretation of ‘public policy’.[6] This judgment built upon the principles laid down in Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL (2020), which set a high threshold for public policy violations.[7]

Procedurally, courts have streamlined the enforcement process. ?In Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd v. Jindal Exports Ltd (2011), the process was streamlined by allowing direct enforcement of foreign awards.[8] This was reinforced in Sundaram Finance v. Abdul Samad (2018) by clarifying that foreign award holders can directly approach the court where assets are located for enforcement, without the need for a separate execution petition.[9] Recent judicial developments have also addressed specific challenges in enforcement with the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reinforcing the principle that Indian courts should not re-examine the merits of a foreign award during enforcement proceedings in the Banyan Tree Growth Capital LLC v. Axiom Cordages Ltd. (2020) judgement.[10]

?

Persistent Challenges and Comparative Perspective

Despite progress, several challenges remain in the enforcement of foreign awards in India. The Indian judicial system's notorious backlog of cases continues to cause delays, even though the Act now prescribes a one-year timeline for disposing of enforcement applications. The case of Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v. Unitech Limited (2017) is a stark example, where enforcement proceedings dragged on for years.[11]

?

Furthermore, the enforcement landscape is complicated by inconsistencies in judicial interpretations, especially at the lower court level, which often leads to uncertainty for parties seeking enforcement. This unpredictability is exacerbated when dealing with state entities, where the process becomes particularly challenging. Issues of sovereign immunity and broad interpretations of public policy are frequently invoked as shields against enforcement, creating additional hurdles for award creditors. Adding to these complexities are various procedural requirements, such as stamp duty payments and, in certain instances, the necessity of obtaining prior government approval which adds to the delay.

?

When compared to other major jurisdictions, India's approach to enforcing foreign awards shows both similarities and differences. The United States, under its Federal Arbitration Act, has similar grounds for refusal but allows more expansive discovery in enforcement proceedings. The United Kingdom is generally more pro-enforcement, with fewer grounds for refusal under its Arbitration Act 1996. Singapore stands out as highly pro-arbitration, with a streamlined enforcement process under its International Arbitration Act. While India has made significant strides, it still lags behind these jurisdictions in terms of efficiency and predictability of enforcement.

?

The Road Ahead: Potential Reforms and Future Directions

To address current challenges and further improve its foreign award enforcement regime, India should adopt a multifaceted approach, combining legislative, judicial, institutional, and technological reforms.

?

Legislative reforms could include clarifying the scope of 'public policy' in the Act to reduce ambiguity. This could draw inspiration from the UK Arbitration Act 1996, which narrowly defines public policy grounds. Additionally, introducing specific provisions for enforcing awards against state entities, similar to those in the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, could provide much-needed clarity. Judicial reforms are equally important. Establishing specialized arbitration benches in High Courts, as recommended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Garware Wall Ropes v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd. (2019), could ensure more consistent and expeditious decisions.[12] Moreover, regular judicial training programs, potentially in collaboration with international arbitration institutions, could foster a deeper understanding of global best practices.

?

Institutionally, enhancing the Arbitration Council of India's role could be transformative. The Council could develop guidelines for enforcing foreign awards, similar to the IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration. Besides, the integration of technology presents another avenue for enhancement. Implementing e-filing and case management systems for enforcement proceedings and exploring the use of AI for preliminary assessment of enforcement applications, akin to the Estonian court system's ‘AI judge project’, can significantly expedite the process. Furthermore, developing frameworks for enforcing awards from online dispute resolution platforms, in line with UNCITRAL's Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution, could prepare India for the future of arbitration.

?

Conclusion:

India has made significant progress in creating a more robust and predictable regime for enforcing foreign arbitral awards. The legislative amendments and evolving judicial approach demonstrate a commitment to aligning with international best practices. However, challenges persist, particularly in terms of delays and inconsistencies in interpretation.

?

The path forward lies in continued reforms, both legislative and institutional, coupled with a consistent pro-enforcement judicial approach. As India seeks to enhance its position as a global economic player, the effectiveness of its foreign award enforcement regime will remain crucial. By addressing current challenges and embracing innovative solutions, India can create an enforcement landscape that not only meets international standards but potentially sets new benchmarks for efficiency and reliability in the realm of international arbitration.

?

The coming years will be pivotal in determining whether India can fully capitalize on its progress and emerge as a preferred hub for international arbitration and enforcement. With continued commitment for reform and innovation, India stands poised to transform its arbitration landscape, enhancing its appeal to the global business community and solidifying its position as a key player in the international arbitration arena.

[1] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, § 44 (1996).

[2] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, § 48 (1996).

[3] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, § 47 (1996).

[4] Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., (1994) Supp (1) SCC 644 (India).

[5] Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa, (2014) 2 SCC 433 (India).

[6] NAFED v. Alimenta S.A., (2020) 4 SCC 257 (India).

[7] Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL, (2020) 11 SCC 1 (India).

[8] Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd v. Jindal Exports Ltd, (2011) 8 SCC 333 (India).

[9] Sundaram Finance v. Abdul Samad, (2018) 3 SCC 622 (India).

[10] Banyan Tree Growth Capital LLC v. Axiom Cordages Ltd., (2020) SCC OnLine Bom 781 (India).

[11] Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v. Unitech Limited, (2017) 239 DLT 649 (India).

[12] Garware Wall Ropes v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd., (2019) 9 SCC 209 (India).