1. What is Enforcement?

Section 35 - Award is final and binding on parties.
Section 36 - After time for challenge under Section 34 expires (3 months + 30 days), award shall be enforced as if it were a decree of the Court.

After 2015 Amendment: Filing of Section 34 does NOT automatically stay enforcement. Party must file separate application for stay under Section 36(2) & (3) and court may impose condition to deposit 50% or furnish security.

Two Types:

1. Domestic Award - Made in India under Part I - Enforced under Section 36 before Commercial Court / District Court where assets lie.
2. Foreign Award - Made outside India in New York Convention (Section 44-52) or Geneva Convention (Section 53-60) country - Enforced under Section 47-49.

2. Procedure for Enforcement of Domestic Award

Step 1: Wait for challenge period
Limitation for Section 34 challenge = 90 days from receipt of award + 30 days condonable delay. Supreme Court in Union of India vs Popular Construction (2001) held this is strict.

Step 2: File Execution Petition
Under Order XXI CPC read with Section 36. File as Execution Case before court having jurisdiction over debtor/assets. Attach:

• Original / Certified copy of award
• Original arbitration agreement
• Affidavit of assets

Step 3: Court Notice
Judgment debtor can object only on Section 34 grounds - not re-argue merits. Court has no power to modify award, only to execute.

Step 4: Attachment & Sale
Same as decree execution - attachment of bank accounts, property under Order XXI.

3. Procedure for Foreign Award - Section 47-49

Section 44 - Definition: Foreign award means award made in country which is signatory to New York Convention and notified by Central Govt in Official Gazette (about 50 countries including USA, UK, Singapore, France).

Section 47 - Evidence Required:

• Original award / certified copy
• Original arbitration agreement
• Evidence to prove award is foreign award
• If not in English, certified translation

Section 48 - Grounds to Refuse Enforcement (Exhaustive):

Court SHALL refuse only if other party proves:

1. Parties under incapacity, agreement invalid under law chosen
2. No proper notice of appointment of arbitrator or proceedings - violation of natural justice
3. Award deals with matters beyond scope of arbitration
4. Composition of tribunal not as per agreement
5. Award not yet binding, or set aside at seat
6. Subject matter not arbitrable in India
7. Enforcement contrary to Public Policy of India - Explanation: (a) fraud/corruption (b) violation of fundamental policy of Indian law (c) conflict with morality/justice.

Section 49 - If not refused, award deemed to be decree.

Limitation for Foreign Award: Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd vs Jindal Exports (2001) 6 SCC 356 and Imax Corp vs E-City (2017) SC - Limitation is 12 years under Art. 136 Limitation Act, not 3 years. Treated as decree.

4. Landmark Case Laws - Indian Supreme Court

This is the evolution you must know:

A. Domestic Enforcement

1. Bhatia International vs Bulk Trading SA (2002) 4 SCC 105:
Supreme Court held Part I applies even to foreign seated arbitrations unless excluded. Created chaos.

2. BALCO vs Kaiser Aluminium (2012) 9 SCC 552 - LANDMARK, Overruled Bhatia:
Supreme Court held Part I applies only to arbitrations seated in India. Seat determines jurisdiction. Indian courts cannot grant interim relief for foreign seated arbitration unless parties agree. This is current law. BALCO prospective from 6 Sept 2012.

3. Associate Builders vs DDA (2015) 3 SCC 49:
Defined "Public Policy" for Section 34 & 48 narrowly. Court cannot set aside for mere erroneous application of law. Must be: (i) Fundamental policy of Indian law (ii) Justice/morality (iii) Patent illegality (only for domestic awards, not foreign).

4. Ssangyong Engineering vs NHAI (2019) 15 SCC 131:
After 2015 Amendment, patent illegality must be illegality going to root, not re-appreciation. Most favoured for enforcement.

5. Government of India vs Vedanta Ltd (2020) 10 SCC 1:
Foreign award can be enforced even if underlying contract violates FEMA - not automatically public policy. Enforcement pro-arbitration approach.

6. Vijay Karia vs Prysmian Cavi (2020) 11 SCC 1:
Supreme Court enforced London award despite party arguing violation of FEMA. Held Courts must have narrow view of public policy, minimal interference. Foreign award enforced unless it shocks conscience.

7. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC vs Future Retail (2022) - Emergency Award:
Emergency arbitrator award seated in Singapore under SIAC Rules is enforceable under Section 17(2). Emergency award is an award.

8. Morgan Securities vs Videocon (2011) - Interest:
Arbitrator can award interest pre, pendente lite, post award under Section 31(7) even if agreement silent.

B. Foreign Award Enforcement

9. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd vs Jindal Exports Ltd (2001) 6 SCC 356 - MOST CITED:
Procedure for enforcement of foreign award is two-stage: First under Section 47-48, court decides if award enforceable. Second, if enforceable, it is executed like decree. No separate suit needed.

10. Renusagar Power Co vs General Electric Co (1994) Supp SCC 644:
First case on New York Convention. Defined public policy narrowly - only if violates fundamental policy, interests of India, justice or morality. Enforcement allowed of US award despite high damages.

11. ONGC vs Saw Pipes (2003) 5 SCC 705 vs Associate Builders:
Saw Pipes expanded public policy to patent illegality for domestic awards, later narrowed by Associate Builders for foreign awards. Important to distinguish.

12. Shri Lal Mahal Ltd vs Progetto Grano (2014) 2 SCC 433:
Supreme Court held Section 48 public policy for foreign awards does NOT include patent illegality. Only Renusagar test applies. Huge boost to foreign award enforcement.

13. Eitzen Bulk A/S vs Ashapura Minechem (2016) 11 SCC 508:
Foreign award can be enforced against assets of company even if company is in winding up. No need for leave of Company Court.

14. Gemini Bay Transcription vs Integrated Sales (2022) 1 SCC 203:
Two foreign awards can be enforced simultaneously against same party, even if seated in different countries, if part of same transaction.

5. Grounds Where Enforcement Refused - Recent

1. Public Policy - Fraud: Campos Brothers vs Guyana type cases - If award obtained by fraud, Indian court will refuse under Sec 48(2)(b).

2. Non-Arbitrability: Booz Allen & Hamilton vs SBI Home Finance (2011) - Mortgage enforcement, fraud, criminal cases, family disputes not arbitrable. But Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading (2021) 2 SCC 1 - 4 Tests for arbitrability is current law - Landlord-tenant under Transfer of Property Act arbitrable, Trust disputes not.

3. No Notice: If tribunal sends notice to old email despite new email on record, enforcement refused - violates Sec 48(1)(b) + natural justice.

6. Practical Checklist for Enforcement

For Domestic Award (Section 36):

• Check 90-day window over? File execution in court where debtor's bank account/property located (Section 36, Section 20 CPC)
• If debtor files Section 34, immediately file objection to stay, ask for 50% deposit per Pam Developments vs State of WB (2019) 8 SCC 112 - Supreme Court said Govt cannot be exempt from deposit.
• Limitation for execution: 12 years.

For Foreign Award:

• Ensure seat country notified - Check Gazette: USA, UK, Singapore, UAE (notified 2022), France, Germany all notified.
• File under Section 47 before High Court having original jurisdiction (Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta) or Commercial Court if not High Court original side.
• Foreign award cannot be challenged under Section 34, only objected under Section 48.

Enforcement Proof Strategy:

• Don't re-argue merits - Court will reject as per MMTC vs Vedanta (2019) - Court must not look into merits.
• Attach affidavit of assets, ask for disclosure under Order XXI Rule 41, seek attachment before judgment under Section 9 if fear of asset dissipation.

Final Rule: After BALCO, Associate Builders, Vijay Karia, the Indian position is pro-enforcement. Supreme Court in PASL Wind Solutions vs GE Power (2021) even allowed two foreign parties to choose India as seat.