Introduction

Arbitration has become a well-known alternative in India’s dispute resolution system, providing a quick and effective way to resolve disputes. The enforcement of arbitral awards is essential to this mechanism’s effectiveness since it serves as a cornerstone for the legitimacy and smooth operation of the arbitration procedure as a whole. An important legislation, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, carefully lays out the procedural rules and guiding concepts that determine whether arbitral rulings can be enforced in India. The Supreme Court of India, whose judicial philosophy and interpretations have a significant impact on the development and application of legislation pertaining to arbitration, plays a crucial role in this framework. 

There is no denying the significance of enforcing arbitral awards. It acts as the link between the final outcome of arbitration processes and their material realization. India’s ratification of the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, sometimes referred to as the New York Convention, emphasizes the issue’s global relevance. This international agreement emphasizes how critical it is to acknowledge and uphold arbitral rulings as soon as possible, promoting an atmosphere compliant with international norms. 

“The difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree” is a saying that perfectly captures the necessity of arbitral rulings being enforced effectively. The Supreme Court has voiced concerns throughout the years, highlighting the complex network of procedural obstacles and structural bottlenecks that might impede the execution process. The legal environment throughout the world emphasizes the need for efficient execution even more. 

Arbitral Awards

Arbitral awards are similar to court rulings in that they represent the outcome of arbitration processes. These awards, which establish legally enforceable obligations and rights, are the decisions of a tribunal that settles significant disagreements between parties. When the arbitration procedure is carried out properly, the losing party, referred to as the award-debtor, usually voluntarily abides by the tribunal’s ruling, which includes giving the award-creditor, the opposing party, payment for damages. Nonetheless, legal recourse may exist if the award-debtor feels the tribunal decided inappropriately or committed errors.

According to section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award-debtor may choose to file a suit in order to have the arbitral award set aside. The aforementioned clause outlines the exact reasons upon which the court will intervene. The arbitral award does not immediately become unenforceable, even if a section 34 application is made to set it aside. On a separate application, the court may issue a stay of the award’s operation, meaning that the award-creditor’s recovery is subject to the court’s judgment. The award is enforceable as a court decree as soon as it reaches finality.

Part 1 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 governs domestic awards. Differentiating between domestic and foreign awards, the former are subject to dispute under section 34. A foreign award, on the other hand, is one rendered in an arbitration held outside of India. The Act’s Section 48 complies with New York Convention Article V, which deals with the execution of foreign awards. The Act prohibits the filing of challenge processes in India against foreign awards, in contrast to domestic awards.

Legislative Framework for Enforcement of Arbitral Award

One important factor ensuring the effectiveness of dispute resolution processes, particularly in the context of international commerce, is the legal framework in India for the enforcement of arbitral awards. In the Indian context, difficulties frequently occur when the other side refuses to take part in the arbitral procedure or gives up on it in the middle. In situations like these, the execution of awards or judgments may be more complicated than in situations when both parties actively participate in the procedures.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) both regulate the execution of arbitral rulings concurrently. Remarkably, awards, both foreign and domestic, including those arising from settlements (consent awards), are executed similar to an Indian court’s verdict. Nonetheless, there is a difference in the enforcement procedure according to the seat of arbitration. Part I of the Act applies to domestic awards, or those seated in India, whereas Part II of the Act governs awards sat abroad.

Part II of the Arbitration Act applies to foreign awards. India acknowledges international awards issued in areas designated as convention nations by the official gazette, having ratified both the New York and Geneva Conventions. According to Section 47, an application for enforcement must be filed with the appropriate high court and be supported by certain documents. The Act’s Section 48 lists a few specific reasons why enforcement may be refused. The statute of limitations for enforcement is three years from the day the right to apply accrues.

Judicial Interpretations and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

The adage that “the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree” is echoed by the fact that litigants attempting to execute arbitral awards face an enormous challenge in the Indian judicial system. Although receiving a favourable order is celebrated as a win, the real struggle begins when the decree enters the executing court’s domain. The Supreme Court, aware of this hardship, has continuously expressed its worries.

In a 2016 ruling, the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction, saying, “It is really agonizing to learn that the Appellant-Decree Holder is unable to enjoy the fruits of her success even today i.e., in 2013 though the Appellant – Plaintiff had finally succeeded in January 1996.” In another landmark case, the Supreme Court ordered that Executing Courts conclude the proceedings within six months of the date of filing, with the option for an extension upon recording written justifications for the delay.

Turning our attention to the Arbitration Act, the award-holder is subject to a three-month waiting time (which can be extended by 30 days) before an arbitral award is enforceable and executed. The Act’s Section 34 permits a challenge to the award within this time. Following finality, in the event that Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act does not provide a stay of execution, the award-holder petitions the executing court to have the decision enforced. The lack of a set process for enforcing arbitral awards forces the party seeking the award to interact with the exact courts they attempted to avoid by using alternative dispute resolution.

Challenges in Seeking Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

Arbitration has become a popular method of resolving disputes because it is seen to be effective in providing parties with prompt decisions and relief. Nonetheless, questions have been raised in India about the prompt implementation and enforcement of arbitral awards. Hon’ble Justice Kaul, a judge in the Apex Court of India, has expressed worry over this and has advised parties, especially government bodies, to accept arbitration rulings rather than continuing litigation as a formality of the appeals process. Furthermore, the government’s failure to carry out a significant arbitral award of INR 7,200 crores was chastised by the Apex Court in a recent case against the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), underscoring the possible obstacle to India’s ambitions to become a global centre for arbitration.

Executing arbitral awards is a drawn-out procedure with several levels of difficulty, particularly when dealing with domestic awards. The challenge procedure outlined in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is the first obstacle for a winning party. The time limit for submitting this challenge is three months from the date of the award, with a potential 30-day extension. Although there are rigorous deadlines for further appeals under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act, the entire appeal process sometimes takes several years.

One major obstacle is the relationship between the court system and arbitral award enforcement. Reforms are desperately needed, as seen by the staggering number of execution petitions that are still pending in both lower and higher courts. The 2022 Supreme Court comment connected India’s goals to become a centre for international arbitration with the enforcement of arbitration awards. The committee appointed by the Indian government to propose changes to the Arbitration Act ought to give special attention to the problem of implementation delays.

Analysis and Conclusion

The joint efforts of the legislature and judiciary have resulted in notable advances in the enforcement of arbitral awards in India. To meet the demands of businesses and society at large, the government has put in place creative and practical policies. Even with these amendments, there are still certain aspects of the arbitration process that need improvement.

Several decisions of the Supreme Court have been crucial in shedding light on the processes involved in carrying out and enforcing arbitral awards. By placing significant financial penalties on individuals who violate prescribed processes, these rulings deter litigating parties from impeding the execution of international judgments. The Supreme Court’s support for upholding foreign arbitral awards, even when grounds for rejection exist, has improved India’s standing as an arbitration-friendly nation. However, obstacles persist, necessitating ongoing efforts to create a more favorable environment for arbitration.

Reforming arbitration institutions and enhancing judicial support are essential steps to ensuring swift and efficient enforcement of arbitral awards, thereby bolstering India’s reputation as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction.

References 

• https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/business-laws/gavel-pagethe-emerging-jurisprudence-for-quicker-execution-of-decrees/article65321133.ece

1. Anirban Chakraborty, Law And Practice Of Alternative Dispute Resolution In India – A Detailed Analysis, Lexis Nexis, 2015.
2. Indu Malhotra, O.P. Malhotra on the Law & Practice of Arbitration and Conciliation, Thomson Reuters, Third Edition, 2014.
3. Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452.
4. Govt. of India v. Vedanta Ltd. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 749. 
5. National Agricultural Coop. Mktg. Federation of India v. Alimenta SA 1989 AIR 818.
6. Venture Global Engg. LLC v. Tech Mahindra Ltd. (2018) 1 SCC 656.
7. NTT Docomo Inc. v. Tata Sons Ltd. 2017 S.C.C. OnLine (Del) 8078.
8. BALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of India 90 (2001) DLT 789.
9. Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL (2020) 11 SCC 1.

Author: Vaidehi Sharma