India: From Regressive To Progressive: The Changing Face Of Arbitration In India

Last Updated: 27 July 2015
Article by PSA


The growth of international arbitration has helped in reducing the transaction costs of business through quick resolution of disputes. This has been possible because of minimal court interference, especially at the stage of enforcement of arbitral awards. In India, the Supreme Court delivered judgments which increased the scope of judicial interference in enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. This led to a decrease in the confidence of international businesses to arbitrate in India. However, the 2012 judgment of the apex court in Bharat Aluminium Co. v Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.1 ("BALCO") ushered in a new era of arbitration in India. Heralded as a "new dawn" for Indian arbitration, the case has served as a precedent for progressive judgments by courts in the area of international commercial arbitration.

The newsletter highlights the judgements which have eased the process of enforcement of awards thereby contributing towards making India an arbitration friendly nation.

1. The legislative framework and its misinterpretation by the courts

Based on Article V of the New York Convention on the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958 ("New York Convention"), section 48 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") lays down the conditions for enforcement of foreign awards. The Arbitration Act is divided into two parts: part I applies to domestic arbitration and part II applies to international arbitrations.2 Section 48 contained in part II provides for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In direct contradiction to the well defined demarcation between the two areas of the Arbitration Act, the Supreme Court in Bhatia International v Bulk Trading SA3 held that part I of the Arbitration Act is applicable to foreign-seated arbitrations. The respondent in this case sought interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration Act, despite the fact that the seat of arbitration was in Paris. The court justified this on the reasoning that by not expressly excluding the provisions of part I of the Arbitration Act in the arbitration agreement, the parties impliedly included these provisions in their agreement.

Extending the reasoning of Bhatia International in Venture Global Engineering v Satyam Computer Services Ltd,4 the Supreme Court held section 34 of the Arbitration Act to be applicable for enforcement of foreign awards. The appellants sought to set-aside the foreign award, which ordered transfer of shares,5 on the basis of violation of public policy of India. Before this judgement, a narrower concept of "public policy" was considered by the Indian judiciary while setting aside foreign arbitral awards under section 48. This ensured that the foreign awards were not set aside on mere technicalities of law, but honoured for their conformity with the foreign law of the place where the arbitration was seated. However, in this case the court favoured a broader definition of public policy, and set aside the award on basis of "patent illegality." Till this judgment, "patent illegality" of an award was only used to set aside domestic awards under section 34. With the precedent set in Bhatia International, the Supreme Court failed to differentiate between the two parts of the Arbitration Act.

This interpretation by the judiciary blurred the distinction between the two distinct parts of the Arbitration Act. The main objective behind the Arbitration act was the speedy resolution of disputes with minimal interference by the Courts6, which was defeated by these cases.

2. Striking the difference between international and domestic arbitration

Given the state of the existing law, every award that was passed outside India became open to challenge in India. Petitions were being filed in courts, seeking to set aside foreign awards on the most frivolous grounds. One such petition filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh sought to set aside an award passed in England under section 34. The court dismissed this petition, and the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. Till this time, a number of appeals in the apex court had been filed on similar grounds. Clubbing these appeals, the Supreme Court aligned its position with the legislative framework.

In BALCO, the court distinguished between parts I and II of the Arbitration Act and held that part I cannot apply to arbitrations whose seat is outside India. The intention of the legislature behind section 48 of the Arbitration Act and its demarcation from section 34 was that the judiciary should not delve into the merits of a foreign award. Such interference should only be accepted by the courts of the country where the award is passed. The underlying motivation of part II was to reduce the hurdles and produce a uniform, simple and speedy system for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. This reasoning given by the court was in conformity with Article V of the New York Convention, which served as the basis for framing section 48. The court gave judicial sanction to the intent of the legislature behind framing of section 48 and recognised India's obligation under the New York Convention.

3. Easing the enforcement process: India steps towards being arbitration friendly

149 countries around the world have ratified the New York Convention. Many jurisdictions have either adopted it in their national legislations or have made provisions analogous to Article V. The "pro-enforcement bias" of the New York Convention urges minimal judicial intervention and narrow construction of the grounds for refusal. Similarly, the language of section 48 is permissive, not mandatory. The section provides that "enforcement of a foreign award may be refused..." thereby conferring discretion on courts to not refuse enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, on a case to case basis. This reasoning has been adopted by courts in other New York Convention jurisdictions and the grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards are usually applied restrictively.7

The Supreme Court, post BALCO, seemed to adopt this approach. A number of judgments delivered by it have indicated its pro-arbitration stance. In Escorts Ltd v Universal Tractor Holding,8 the respondent sought execution of a US award, in the Delhi High Court who granted the execution. The petitioner then challenged this decision in the Supreme Court. The basis of their challenge was that the award was not confirmed as per the provisions of the arbitration agreement and the Federal Arbitration Act of the United States. Confirmation of the award means that the award must receive judicial sanction, so that it becomes equivalent to a decree passed by a civil court. The petitioner contended that this was sufficient reason for denying enforcement under section 48. However, the apex court did not accept this argument. It pointed out that the requirement of double exequatur was removed by the enactment of the New York Convention. Double exequatur requires that the award be confirmed by the court of the country where it has been passed, before its enforcement can be sought in another jurisdiction. The court held that section 48 is on Article V of the New York Convention and the doctrine of double exequatur is inapplicable in India.

Continuing their pro-enforcement stance, the Supreme Court corrected its position of Venture Global in 2013 in Shri Lal Mahal v Progetto Grano Spa.9 In this case, the award issued in London was enforced by the Delhi High Court. The petitioner challenged this decision in the Supreme Court and contended that the award was contrary to the public policy of India since it was not in conformity with the provisions of the contract between the parties. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court and refused to go into the merits of the dispute. It held that the public policy exception provided in section 48 must be construed narrowly while enforcing international awards. Alleged errors of fact (even if made out) could not justify refusing recognition and enforcement of the award. Only if the award was contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law or to basic notions of morality and justice, would the courts interfere in the enforcement of a foreign award.

In Govind Rubber v Louids Dreyfus Commodities Asia P. Ltd.10 the Supreme Court in 2014 further upheld a Bombay High Court decision of enforcing an award in the absence of a valid arbitration agreement. The contention of the petitioner was that since the contract was not signed by the parties, the arbitration agreement was not valid. The seat of arbitration was in Singapore and lex arbitri or the law of the seat of arbitration mandated that the arbitration agreement be signed by the parties. According to the petitioner, the arbitral tribunal did not consider this before passing the final award. The court held that the New York Convention requires an arbitration agreement to be signed, which does not imply that it must be signed by the parties. Further, it opined that, "a commercial document having an arbitration clause has to be interpreted in such a manner as to give effect to the agreement rather than invalidate it."

The pro-enforcement trend has also been adopted by different High Courts. In Perma Container (UK) Line Limited v Perma Container Line (India) Pvt Ltd11 the petitioner sought for the enforcement of a UK award in the Bombay High Court. The respondent challenged this petition, seeking to declare the award "null and void" for violation of public policy and the main contention was that the arbitrator suo moto ruled on the issue of forgery of some documents. They contended that forgery is a serious issue with criminal consequences and penalties which should be sufficient cause to deny enforcement. However, the Bombay High Court did not accept the argument of the respondent. By citing Shri Lal Mahal, the court held that the public policy exception under section 48 must be construed narrowly as the section mandates that the award must be induced by fraud for it to be set aside. Further, the court also held that any opinion of the arbitrator on forgery could not be used by the respondent as evidence against the petitioner in any subsequent proceedings in a criminal court. The court refused to go into the merits of the dispute and enforced the award.

The Calcutta High Court also followed in the steps of the Supreme Court when it refused a petition seeking to vacate a foreign award. The petitioner in Coal India Ltd v Canadian Commercial Corporation12 sought to set aside an ICC award. The contention of the respondent was the governing law of contract was India and, thus, the award could be set aside under section 34.

However, the court refused to interfere under section 34. Quoting the BALCO judgment, the court held that foreign awards cannot be subject to part I of the Arbitration Act. The seat of arbitration was in Geneva, Switzerland and any petition for setting aside be moved in Swiss courts. Further, no petition for setting aside a foreign award can be filed under section 48. This section only provides for enforcement of an award and does not allow the courts to look into the merits of the dispute. The High Court held that section 48 does not contemplate a situation where a foreign award could be challenged in an Indian court and, therefore, dismissed the petition.


One of the biggest advantage of arbitration is the expected speedy resolution of disputes. Needless to say, it is necessary that finality is given to the award which requires minimal court interference. Indian courts earned a reputation of being anti-arbitration since reasoned awards were often challenged. Further, pre-BALCO, a number of "arbitration-unfriendly" judgments had given rise to concerns about India's commitment to arbitration. The sanctity and efficacy of arbitration is at risk where enforcement is stalled. However, with BALCO setting the tone, the courts appear to have progressed to adopting pro-enforcement interpretation of the Arbitration Act. Clearly, it is necessary to provide legislative sanction to various judgments of the different courts. An amendment to section 48 expressly enumerating the components of "public policy" would help in reducing the time taken to enforce awards in India. A dynamic business environment demands that the efficiency of its functions are not disrupted by protracted legal disputes. The Supreme Court has recognised this and is developing jurisprudence to support and encourage arbitration.


1 (2012) 9 SCC 552

2 Part I contains Sections1-34 and Part II contains Sections 44-60

3 (2002) 4 SCC 105

4 (2008) 4 SCC 190

5 This was contended to be in violation of Indian laws and regulations specifically the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and its notifications

6 Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, Proposed Amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997: A Consultation Paper (2010), Last retrieved July 16th, 2015

7 Alan Redfern & Martin Hunter, The Law & Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (4th ed., Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2006) 445

8 (2013) 10 SCC 717

9 (2014) 2 SCC 433

10 (2014) 14 SCALE 92

11 Arbitration Petition Nos. 259 and 406 of 2013 (Bombay High Court)

12 (2013) 2 CHN 494

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Link Legal India Law Services
In association with
Practice Guides
by Mondaq Advice Centres
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Link Legal India Law Services
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions