Our Blogs

Arbitration Law | July 6, 2025

How India Enforces International Arbitration Awards Under the Geneva Convention

Introduction

As international trade and investment grow, it's more important than ever to have good ways to settle disputes. International commercial arbitration is one way to settle disagreements between people from different legal systems in a fair and flexible way. The real value of arbitration, though, isn't just that it settles disputes; it's also that the awards can be enforced across borders. This submission is about how India enforced international arbitral awards under the Geneva Convention before switching to the more popular New York Convention.

 

The legal question that this study is based on is: What was the legal framework and process for enforcing international commercial arbitration awards in India under the Geneva Convention, and how did it affect the current enforcement regime?

 

This question is crucial to comprehending how India changed its legal status under the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act from its early commitments to international arbitration.Among the first international attempts to improve the uniformity of arbitration enforcement were the Geneva Protocol of 1923 and the Geneva Convention of 1927. This framework was derived from these two documents.

 

Under British rule at the time, India signed the agreements and later used the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act of 1937 to incorporate them into Indian law. This demonstrated India's early support for accepting arbitral awards from other countries. The structure of this paper is as follows: first, it gives background information and details India's accession to the Geneva Convention; second, it looks at the 1937 Act's statutory provisions and enforcement requirements; third, it talks about how Indian courts have interpreted these provisions; and last, it considers the Convention's current significance and impact. The goal is to provide a clear understanding of India's fundamental strategy for enforcing international arbitration prior to the implementation of the current regime.

 

Historical Background

In the early 20th century, as global trade was expanding and the need for impartial dispute resolution procedures grew in significance, India started the process of implementing foreign arbitral awards. At first, India adhered to the international legal system set up by the Geneva Convention of 1927 and the Geneva Protocol of 1923. These were some of the earliest international efforts to guarantee the enforceability of arbitral awards rendered in one nation in another. The Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act of 1937 was passed in order to put these conventions into effect domestically. The Geneva framework did, however, have a number of drawbacks, such as convoluted processes and inconsistent enforcement across jurisdictions.

A more efficient and standardized system was required as global trade increased following World War II. As a result, in 1958, the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards was adopted. The convention limited the grounds on which national courts could reject foreign awards and streamlined the enforcement procedure. It swiftly emerged as the favored global norm for the enforcement of arbitration. After ratifying the New York Convention in 1960, India incorporated its tenets into its own domestic legislation in Part II, Chapter I of the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act.The UNCITRAL Model Law, which attempts to harmonize arbitration laws worldwide, had an impact on this Act as well as modernizing India's arbitration law. India recognizes and upholds foreign awards made in nations that the Indian government has designated as reciprocating territories under this framework. India's goal to promote global trade and establish a business-friendly legal framework that upholds international arbitration standards is reflected in this move from the Geneva system to the New York Convention.

Legal Framework

The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India under the New York Convention, 1958 is governed by Part II, Chapter I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This chapter applies to enforcement of foreign arbitral awards made in countries which (i) are parties of the New York Convention and (ii) are notified by the Central Government of India as reciprocating territories.¹ The structure reflects India working as a partner in international arbitration and strives to minimize judicial intervention subject to the award being against Indian public policy and meeting standards of due process.

According to Section 44 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a "foreign award" means an award made in a territory considered as a reciprocating country under this Act arising out of legal relationships considered commercial under Indian laws made on or after the 11th day of October, 1960.² Thus, enforcement is limited to awards from countries where there is reciprocity; this corresponds to Article I of the New York Convention.

On enforcement initiation, an application is made under Section 47 with three documents: (a) the original award or an authenticated copy of the award, (b) the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy thereof, and (c) translation into English wherever required.³ Once this is filed, the award shall be treated as a decree of an Indian court, subject to the conditions specified in Section 48 being satisfied.

Section 48 has set forth limited grounds for refusal of enforcement, resulting in a narrow ground of judicial review: namely-the incapacity of the parties,invalidity of the arbitration agreement under the law to which the parties have subjected it,due process violations: proper notice has not been given; or one party was unable to present his case,the award deals with matters beyond the terms of submission to arbitration, the composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or the award has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which and under the law of which that award was made.

Subject matter of the award is matters that are not arbitrable under Indian law, or enforcement may be contrary to Indian public policy; Indian courts may also refuse enforcement suo motu aside from party-based objections. The expression "public policy" is a term that has received judicial clarification. In Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., the Supreme Court stated that public policy must be given a narrow construction, especially with regard to foreign awards, and be restricted to violations of the fundamental policy of Indian law or the interest of India or justice and morality. This restrictive interpretation thus means that enforcement will not be refused unless on exceptional grounds.

Later, in Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa, the Supreme Court stuck to its narrow reading and said that the reasons for cancelling a domestic award under Section 34 of the Act simply should not be dragged into enforcement cases under Section 48.  This ruling brought Indias law more in line with global standards and underscored the courts usual habit of favoring enforcement.

Indian courts also do not re-assess the facts or the conclusions reached by an arbitral tribunal, a feature that streamlines the process. This principle of limited judicial review, embedded in the 1996 Act, helps ensure that international commercial awards are treated as final and predictable.

As a result, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 offers a clear, pro-arbitration pathway for recognising and enforcing foreign awards in India, fully aligning with the aims of the New York Convention.
 

Analysis

I – Issue

At the heart of this study is the question of whether India genuinely delivers on its promise to enforce foreign arbitration awards under the New York Convention, as laid out in Part II, Chapter I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether its courts interpret these rules in line with global arbitration norms.

 

That question has gained urgency as businesses increasingly turn to arbitration to settle cross-border disputes, relying on the expectation that an award made abroad will be recognised and executed here with only the lightest judicial touch. Although India signed the New York Convention and paired it with supportive domestic law, real confidence comes only when judges follow those standards in everyday cases.

The worry is two-part: do Indian judges adopt a pro-enforcement attitude that honours the finality of the award, and do they steer clear of recourse to sweeping grounds-especially the catch-all public policy test-that might block recognition? How courts strike that balance between upholding international commitments and protecting local legal values will shape Indias standing as a friend of global arbitration.

The issue also addresses the predictability and consistency of judicial decisions. If enforcement is often challenged or denied for wide-ranging reasons, it can weaken the trust in arbitration as a way to resolve disputes for foreign investors and parties working with Indian counterparts. 

Thus, the legal question is not just whether Indian law allows enforcement of foreign awards under the New York Convention. It's also about whether Indian courts interpret and apply these laws in a way that respects the spirit and intention of the Convention.

R – Rule

The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India is governed by Part II, Chapter I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This part incorporates the provisions of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958, to which India is a signatory.

Under Section 44 of the Act, a foreign award is defined as one arising out of a commercial relationship, made in a country that is a party to the New York Convention and notified by the Central Government as a reciprocating territory. This section sets the foundation for identifying whether a foreign award qualifies for enforcement under Indian law.

Once an award meets these initial conditions, Section 47 prescribes the documents required for enforcement. These include the original award, the original arbitration agreement (or duly authenticated copies), and, where applicable, certified translations of these documents. The party applying for enforcement must file these before a competent court in India.

Most importantly, Section 48 of the Act sets out the limited grounds on which enforcement may be refused. These grounds fall into two categories:

1. Party-related objections (Section 48(1)) – These include incapacity of the parties, invalidity of the arbitration agreement under the applicable law, lack of proper notice, inability to present the case, and if the award contains decisions beyond the scope of arbitration.
    
2. Court-invoked objections (Section 48(2)) – The court may refuse enforcement if the award deals with matters not capable of settlement by arbitration under Indian law or if its enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of India.
    

The term “public policy” has been narrowly interpreted by Indian courts, beginning with the landmark decision in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., where the Supreme Court limited the scope of public policy to violations of the fundamental policy of Indian law, justice or morality, or the interests of India. This approach was reaffirmed in Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa, where the Court held that broader domestic grounds for setting aside arbitral awards (under Section 34) cannot be applied to foreign awards under Section 48.

Therefore, the applicable rule under Indian law reflects a pro-enforcement approach, aligned with the object and purpose of the New York Convention, while still retaining limited safeguards to protect public interest and procedural integrity.

A – Application

Indian courts have generally taken a supportive stance toward the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, applying the rules under Part II, Chapter I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in a manner consistent with the objectives of the New York Convention. Several landmark decisions illustrate this approach.

In Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., the Supreme Court was called upon to determine the scope of the public policy exception under Section 7 of the now-repealed Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937. The Court held that “public policy” in the context of foreign awards should be interpreted narrowly, limited only to violations of (a) the fundamental policy of Indian law, (b) justice or morality, or (c) India’s national interests. This interpretation became the foundation for the modern understanding of public policy in enforcement proceedings under Section 48 of the 1996 Act.

This position was reinforced in Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa, where the Supreme Court clarified that the grounds available for setting aside domestic awards under Section 34—such as patent illegality or contravention of Indian law—cannot be invoked to resist enforcement of a foreign award under Section 48. This ensured a clear distinction between domestic and international arbitration regimes and confirmed India’s commitment to the enforcement-friendly approach required under the New York Convention.

Further affirmation came in Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL, where the Court rejected challenges based on procedural objections and observed that foreign awards should not be reviewed on merits. The judgment emphasized that Indian courts must not act as appellate bodies when asked to enforce foreign awards. The Court also warned against using “public policy” as a pretext to revisit the factual or legal findings of the arbitral tribunal.

However, enforcement has not always been without obstacles. In NAFED v. Alimenta SA, the Supreme Court denied enforcement on the ground that the award violated Indian export control regulations and was therefore contrary to public policy. Critics of the decision argue that it expanded the scope of public policy beyond what was permitted in Renusagar and Shri Lal Mahal, raising concerns about unpredictability and inconsistency.

Despite such exceptions, the majority of Indian judgments favour enforcement, in line with global standards. Courts have increasingly shown awareness of the need to support arbitration as an effective dispute resolution method in international trade and investment, without unnecessary interference.

C – Conclusion

India’s legal framework for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, as established under Part II, Chapter I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is fundamentally aligned with the New York Convention’s pro-enforcement spirit. The statutory provisions, particularly Sections 44 to 48, provide a structured and narrowly-defined set of grounds upon which enforcement may be refused, preserving the finality and sanctity of arbitral awards.

Indian courts have, in most landmark cases, adopted a judicial approach that favours enforcement. The decisions in Renusagar, Shri Lal Mahal, and Vijay Karia confirm that the judiciary has recognised the importance of maintaining India’s reputation as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. By narrowing the interpretation of “public policy” and restricting review of foreign awards to procedural integrity and fundamental legal principles, the courts have demonstrated respect for party autonomy and international commercial certainty.

That said, occasional deviations—such as the judgment in NAFED v. Alimenta SA—highlight the challenges of maintaining consistency in judicial reasoning. Such inconsistencies risk undermining the predictability that is crucial to international arbitration and may discourage foreign investors if left unchecked.

Therefore, while the legal rules are clear and mostly applied appropriately, continued judicial discipline and doctrinal clarity are essential. Training judges, strengthening commercial benches, and possibly codifying judicial interpretations of “public policy” could help prevent conflicting rulings in the future. These steps would further bolster India’s standing as a reliable forum for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

 

Conclusion

India’s legal framework for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, specifically those governed by the New York Convention, reflects a deliberate effort to support international commercial arbitration while safeguarding essential legal principles. The statutory provisions under Part II, Chapter I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 lay out a clear and structured process for enforcement. More importantly, judicial interpretation has played a pivotal role in defining the scope of exceptions, especially the term “public policy.”

The Supreme Court of India, through decisions such as Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., and later Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa, has maintained a narrow and consistent view of public policy to uphold the enforceability of foreign awards. More recently, Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL reaffirmed the principle that courts should not review the merits of the award during enforcement. Although some decisions, like NAFED v. Alimenta SA, created temporary uncertainty, the larger judicial trend has supported enforcement, aligning Indian law with international norms.

Practically, this pro-enforcement approach enhances India’s reputation as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, promoting investor confidence and legal predictability. Future research may explore how Indian courts balance domestic legal concerns with international obligations, especially in evolving sectors like digital commerce or public policy-linked disputes. There is also scope for a comparative study on enforcement mechanisms across jurisdictions.

References

 

United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 10 June 1958)

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, No. 26 of 1996, §§ 44–52 (India).

Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. Gen. Elec. Co., (1994) Supp. (1) S.C.C. 644 (India).

Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa, (2014) 2 S.C.C. 433 (India).

Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL, (2020) 11 S.C.C. 1 (India).

NAFED v. Alimenta S.A., (2020) 5 S.C.C. 453 (India).

Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration (2d ed. 2014).