Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards
Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with conditions for enforcement of foreign awards. Enforcement of a foreign award may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the court proof that— (a) the parties to the agreement referred to in section 44 were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity, or the said agreement The Act came into force on 22 Aug 1996.
(1) Enforcement of a foreign award may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the court proof that—
(a) the parties to the agreement referred to in section 44 were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made; or
(b) the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or
(c) the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration:
Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration may be enforced; or
(d) the composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place ; or
(e) the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made.
(2) Enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the Court finds that—
(a) the subject-matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of India; or
(b) the enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of India.
1[Explanation 1.—For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if,—
(i) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or section 81; or
(ii) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law; or
(iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.
Explanation 2.—For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute.]
(3) If an application for the setting aside or suspension of the award has been made to a competent authority referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) the Court may, if it considers it proper, adjourn the decision on the enforcement of the award and may also, on the application of the party claiming enforcement of the award, order the other party to give suitable security.
Section 48, The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Enforcement of a New York Convention award under Arbitration Act s.48 cannot be refused merely because the underlying transaction allegedly violated FEMA s.6 capital-account regulations. FEMA is not a s.48(2) public-policy bar; the enforcement court does not sit in appeal, and alleged FEMA breach is for the FEMA authorities. Use Judgement order-12.pdf (2020-02-13), not same-date order-11 ROP.
On this section: s.48(2) public-policy refusal of a New York Convention award does not include a mere FEMA capital-account objection.
-
Phulchand Exports LTD vs Ooo Patriot
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a CIF contract, when a seller breaches fundamental terms regarding shipment timing and vessel destination (loading goods on a vessel not bound to the contract destination as first port of discharge), the prima facie rule of risk and property transfer under Section 26 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is rebutted. The seller remains liable for non-delivery even after shipment of goods or delivery of shipping documents. A reimbursement clause in a CIF contract requiring the seller to reimburse the price paid if goods do not arrive within a specified period is a legitimate contractual term and not an unenforceable penalty under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, nor an unconscionable bargain under Section 23, when agreed between experienced businessmen with equal bargaining power in conformity with international trade practices. The expression 'public policy of India' under Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be given a wider meaning to include awards that are patently illegal, in addition to awards violating fundamental policy of Indian law, interests of India, or justice and morality.
On this section: Primary provision under which the award enforcement was challenged; Court held that 'public policy of India' must be given wider meaning including patent illegality
-
Arun Dev Upadhyaya vs Integrated Sales Service Ltd. & ANR.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A non-signatory to an arbitration agreement can be bound by a foreign arbitral award if the non-signatory is a 'person' bound by the award through doctrines like alter ego or succession, but not merely by virtue of being a non-signatory. Section 48(1)(a) applies only to parties to the agreement and cannot be expansively interpreted to include non-signatories. The grounds for refusing enforcement of foreign awards under Section 48 must be narrowly construed in consonance with the pro-enforcement bias of the New York Convention. The burden of proof under Section 48 means establishing the ground on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal, not requiring fresh oral evidence. An arbitrator's application of foreign law (here, Delaware law on alter ego doctrine) to bind non-signatories is reviewable by the enforcement court only to the extent of verifying whether the foreign law was properly applied, not on the merits of the award.
On this section: Grounds for refusing enforcement - parties to agreement under incapacity or agreement invalid under applicable law; does not apply to non-signatories
-
Shin-etsu Chemical Co. LTD vs Aksh Optifibre Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The correct approach to be adopted under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at the pre-reference stage is one of a prima facie finding by the trial court as to the validity or otherwise of the arbitration agreement. The court need only arrive at prima facie satisfaction that there exists an arbitral agreement which is not null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, and if the trial court finds thus, the parties shall be referred to arbitration. A final determinative finding is not required at the pre-reference stage; such a finding may be made at the post-award stage under Section 48(1)(a) if the award is challenged.
On this section: Provides ground to challenge enforcement of foreign arbitral awards on basis that arbitration agreement was not valid; interpretation of Section 45 affects availability of this ground
-
Booz-allen & Hamilton INC vs Sbi Home Finance Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Disputes relating to enforcement of mortgages by sale of mortgaged immovable property constitute actions in rem that are inherently non-arbitrable and must be adjudicated exclusively by courts of law. Where a suit is filed for enforcement of a mortgage with a request for sale of the mortgaged property, the matter cannot be referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if an arbitration agreement exists covering the dispute, because: (1) the nature and scheme of mortgage suits under Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Transfer of Property Act reserve such adjudication exclusively for public fora (courts), (2) arbitral tribunals cannot perform the comprehensive functions required including joining all interested parties, protecting rights of third parties, taking accounts, declaring amounts due, and directing sale procedures, and (3) bifurcation of the suit into arbitrable and non-arbitrable components is not permissible under Section 8 of the Act.
On this section: Enforcement of foreign awards; similar provision regarding non-arbitrable matters
-
Shin-etsu Chemical Co. LTD vs Aksh Optifibre Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when a judicial authority is seized of an action in a matter where parties have made an arbitration agreement, and an objection is raised that the agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed, the judicial authority must make a final determination on the merits of such objection - not merely a prima facie finding - before referring the parties to arbitration. The mandatory language 'shall' combined with 'unless' conditions, the distinction between Sections 8 and 45, the legislative scheme protecting parties from wasteful international arbitration proceedings on invalid agreements, the precedent interpretation of the analogous Section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act 1961, and the economic realities of international commercial arbitration, all indicate that full adjudication on merits (not prima facie determination) is constitutionally required at the Section 45 referral stage.
On this section: Enforcement of foreign awards; cited to show another stage where validity can be examined, but this does not reduce the scope of Section 45 examination at reference stage.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 48
What have the courts held on Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL (13 Feb 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.48(2) public-policy refusal of a New York Convention award does not include a mere FEMA capital-account objection. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Arbitration Act 48, section 48 Arbitration Act, section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. People searching for it also type arbitration act s 48. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL (13 Feb 2020).
What should I read with Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 44 (Definition), section 75 (Confidentiality), section 81 (Admissibility of evidence in other proceedings), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act come into force?
Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cited as Arbitration Act 48, came into force on 22 Aug 1996, having been enacted on 16 Aug 1996. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement1029 words
- 11. Appointment of arbitrators1027 words
- 34. Application for setting aside arbitral awards861 words
- 2. Definitions732 words
- 29A. Time limit for arbitral award635 words
- 57. Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards519 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.