Indian arbitration follows the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 while adhering to international standards of arbitration under the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Section 48 of the Act serves as the key component for determining if foreign arbitral awards can be enforced in India. Under this provision specific circumstances dictate which cases can lead to refusal of acknowledging and enforcing foreign awards.
Scope of Section 48
Under Part II of the Act Section 48 exists alongside other provisions that pertain to New York Convention enforcement of foreign awards. This segment defines a process that helps Indian judicial bodies determine whether they should execute foreign arbitral awards inside India's borders.
Breakdown of Section 48 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, deals with the conditions for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India. An Indian court can deny enforcement based on the particular conditions spelled out in this provision. Section 48 of the Act follows the provisions set in Article V of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958.
1. Grounds for Refusing Enforcement (Sub-section 1)
According to sub-section (1) of the Act, enforceability denial is available to three conditions proven by the opposing party.
(a) Incapacity or Invalidity of Agreement
If any party to the arbitration agreement lacked legal capacity under the law applicable to them.
If the arbitration agreement is invalid under:
The law the parties have chosen for the agreement, or
The law of the country where the award was made (if no choice of law is specified).
Example: If one of the parties is a minor or a mentally incapacitated person, or if the contract itself is illegal, enforcement may be denied.
(b) Lack of Proper Notice or Right to Present Case
If the party against whom enforcement is sought was:
Not given proper notice regarding the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitral proceedings.
Unable to present their case due to procedural unfairness.
Example: If the respondent was not notified about the arbitration process and was unable to defend itself, the court may refuse enforcement.
(c) Award Beyond the Scope of Arbitration Agreement
If the award:
Deals with matters not contemplated or covered by the arbitration agreement.
Includes decisions beyond the agreed-upon scope.
Proviso: If the issues beyond the arbitration agreement can be separated, then only the portion that falls within the scope of arbitration will be enforced.
Example: If a contract disputes only financial claims but the arbitrator also rules on intellectual property rights, the latter part of the award may not be enforced.
Also, Get to Know How to Draft an Arbitration Agreement?
(d) Composition of Arbitral Tribunal or Procedure Not as Agreed
If the:
Arbitral tribunal’s composition, or
Arbitral procedure
Was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties.
Was not as per the law of the country where arbitration took place (in absence of an agreement).
Example: If the arbitration agreement required three arbitrators, but the dispute was decided by a single arbitrator, enforcement can be challenged.
Also, Checkout the Essentials of an Arbitration Agreement
(e) Award is Not Binding or Has Been Set Aside
If the award:
Has not yet become binding on the parties.
Has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority in the country where it was made or under whose law it was made.
Example: If an arbitral award rendered in Singapore has been set aside by the Singapore courts, it cannot be enforced in India.
Also, Get to Know Legal Recourse Against an Arbitral Award
2. Additional Grounds for Refusing Enforcement (Sub-section 2)
Under sub-section (2), even if the above grounds are not established, the court can still refuse enforcement if:
(a) The Subject-Matter is Not Arbitrable in India
If the subject matter of the dispute cannot be resolved through arbitration under Indian law.
Certain disputes are reserved for national courts, such as:
Criminal matters
Matrimonial disputes
Insolvency and bankruptcy
Patent and trademark validity
Example: If an arbitral award concerns criminal fraud, the court may refuse enforcement since criminal matters are non-arbitrable in India.
(b) The Award Violates Public Policy of India
If enforcement of the award is contrary to the public policy of India.
Explanation 1 (added by 2016 Amendment) clarifies that an award is against public policy if:
It was obtained by fraud or corruption or violates Section 75 or Section 81 (confidentiality and conciliation rules).
It is against the fundamental policy of Indian law.
It is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.
Explanation 2 clarifies that the fundamental policy of Indian law should not involve a review of the merits of the dispute.
Example: If an award enforces a contract that involves bribery or violates Indian constitutional principles, the court can refuse enforcement.
3. Court’s Discretion to Adjourn Enforcement Proceedings (Sub-section 3)
If an application for setting aside or suspending the award is made in the country where it was issued, the Indian court may adjourn enforcement proceedings.
The court may also require security from the party resisting enforcement.
Example: If the losing party in arbitration has applied to a U.S. court to set aside the award, the Indian court may postpone enforcement until the U.S. court decides.
Also, Get to Know Finality & Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
Judicial Interpretation
Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Act 1996, Section 48 specifies the cases where Indian courts can deny enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The Indian judiciary has applied Article 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 through different court decisions in numerous cases. Various notable judgments explain how Section 48 functions through these summaries:
1. Vijay Karia & Ors. v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL & Ors. (2020)
Facts: The parties entered into a joint venture agreement containing an arbitration clause for disputes to be resolved under the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) rules. An arbitral award was rendered in favor of the respondent. The appellants did not challenge the award in the English courts but resisted its enforcement in India, citing grounds under Section 48 of the Act.
Issues: Whether the enforcement of the foreign award could be refused under Section 48 on grounds including violation of Indian public policy and perversity of the arbitral tribunal's findings.
Judgment: Under Section 48 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal since it lacks the authority to review foreign awards concerning their merits. The Court explained that refusal grounds must be interpreted strictly in addition to having narrow applications. Trying to violate statutes alone does not meet requirements to breach public policy. The Court also imposed costs on the appellants for engaging in speculative litigation to resist enforcement.
2. Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (2020)
Facts: A dispute arose between Centrotrade and Hindustan Copper, leading to a two-tier arbitration process. The first award was in favor of Hindustan Copper, while the second favored Centrotrade. Centrotrade sought enforcement of the second award in India.
Issues: (i) Whether a two-tier arbitration clause is permissible under Indian law; (ii) Whether the second award qualifies as a 'foreign award' enforceable under Section 48.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the two-tier arbitration clause and recognized the second award as a foreign award. The Court found no grounds under Section 48 to refuse enforcement, noting that Hindustan Copper had ample opportunity to present its case during arbitration.
Also, Checkout the Top ADR Case Laws in India
3. EIG (Mauritius) Limited v. McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited (2021)
Facts: EIG (Mauritius) Limited sought enforcement of a foreign arbitral award against McNally Bharat Engineering. The respondent opposed enforcement, alleging that it would contravene Indian public policy.
Issues: Whether the enforcement of the foreign award should be refused on the grounds of public policy under Section 48(2)(b).
Judgment: The Calcutta High Court held that the grounds for refusing enforcement under Section 48 are limited and must be strictly construed. The Court found no violation of Indian public policy and allowed the enforcement of the award.
Also, Learn How to Become an Arbitrator in India
Summing Up
Under Section 48 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 courts protect Indian legal principles through refusal to execute foreign arbitral awards that violate fundamental rights or legal principles. Indian courts adopt an approach that supports arbitration effectiveness while upholding the core values of domestic laws through their enforcement of pro-arbitration decisions. The interpretation of Section 48 demands thorough examination for both businesses involved in international arbitration disputes and their legal advisors.
Related Posts:
Section 48 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: FAQs
Q1: What is Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
Section 48 specifies the grounds on which a foreign arbitral award can be refused enforcement in India.
Q2. What are the most important grounds for refusal of enforcement under Section 48?
The grounds are invalid arbitration agreements, failure to give proper notice, excess of jurisdiction, irregularities in procedure, non-binding awards, and against public policy.
Q3: What is 'public policy' under Section 48?
Public policy encompasses fraud, corruption, breach of fundamental Indian legal principles, and violation of natural justice.
Q4: Is an arbitral award capable of being enforced partially under Section 48?
Affirmative, if only sections of the award are in violation of enforcement requirements, the rest can be enforced.
Q5: How did Indian courts read Section 48?
Courts have applied a pro-enforcement approach and restricted refusals to mere exceptional cases, while ensuring observance of international arbitration principles.
