India

In India, cross-border enforcement is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for the judgments passed by the foreign courts.

Depending upon the country of origin, the judgment passed by the foreign court follows one of two routes:

• Reciprocating territories. The money decree passed by the foreign court can be directly executed under section 44A of the CPC by filing an execution petition, as if it is a decree passed by the Indian courts.
• Non-reciprocating territories. Direct execution is not permissible. Instead, a fresh civil suit must be filed in India based on the foreign judgment, which operates as conclusive evidence of the parties’ rights subject to the exceptions under section 13 of the CPC. For commercial disputes meeting the specified monetary threshold, this fresh suit must be instituted under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“Commercial Courts Act”).

What are the main international treaties or conventions that apply?

India is not a party to any multilateral treaty or convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign Judgment. In particular, India is neither a signatory to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, 2005 (“Hague Choice of Courts”) nor to the Hague Judgments Convention, 2019 (“Hague Judgment”).

India’s cross-border enforcement framework for court judgments is instead built upon bilateral judicial cooperation arrangements and the reciprocating territory mechanism under section 44A of the CPC. For this purpose, bilateral judicial cooperation arrangements are the functional equivalent of international treaties. An example is the India–UAE Agreement on Juridical and Judicial Cooperation, 1999 (“India–UAE Agreement”).

Reciprocity is given effect through section 44A of the CPC, wherein an execution petition for a money decree passed by a designated “Superior Court” of a notified reciprocating territory can be filed in Indian courts as if it had been passed by that court, subject to exceptions of section 13 of the CPC as applied by section 44A(3) of the CPC.

The reciprocating territories are notified by the Government of India through the official Gazette notifications.

Section 44A is confined to money decrees arising out of court judgments. It does not extend to sums payable as taxes or other charges of a like nature, fines or penalties, or to arbitral awards.

What legal principles apply if there is no applicable international treaty or convention?

Since the judgment emanating from the non-reciprocating territories and decrees other than money decrees from a reciprocating territory cannot be executed directly, the decree holder has to initiate a fresh civil suit in India on the basis of the foreign judgment, which is conclusive proof of the parties’ rights, subject to the exceptions under section 13 of the CPC.

Section 13 of the CPC makes a foreign judgment conclusive as to any matter directly adjudicated between the same parties thereby, operating as res judicata; and under section 14, on production of a certified copy of the said foreign judgment, a presumption arises that it was pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on record. However, this presumption is rebuttable and may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction of the foreign court.

The Commercial Courts Act governs the forum and procedure for matters qualifying as a “commercial dispute” under section 2(c) thereof, provided the dispute is of a “specified value”, currently INR 3,00,000 or more. Any such suit must be filed as a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act. The said Act also prescribes case-management timelines designed to expedite commercial matters.

Under section 13 of the CPC, a judgment passed by a foreign court is conclusive as to any matter directly adjudicated between the same parties, and will be recognised and enforced, unless the judgment debtor establishes one of six exceptions. In 2026, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) restated these grounds and reaffirmed that they are to be construed narrowly, as an incident of comity: Griesheim GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases (P) Ltd 2026 SCC OnLine SC 648 (paragraphs 26 and 27). The six grounds are that the judgment:

• was not pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction;
• was not given on the merits of the case;
• is founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise Indian law where applicable;
• was obtained in proceedings opposed to natural justice;
• was obtained by fraud; or
• sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India.

Jurisdiction of the foreign court

Competence is tested on the principles recognised by private international law, not merely by the foreign Court’s own rules: Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991) 3 SCC 451 (paragraphs 15–17); R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid AIR 1963 SC 1 (paragraph 16).

The foreign court is generally treated as competent where the defendant was resident or carried on business within its jurisdiction, voluntarily appeared, or had contractually submitted to that forum. A party who invokes a foreign court’s jurisdiction cannot resist the resulting order: Moloji Nar Singh Rao Shitole v. Shankar Saran 1962 SCC OnLine SC 141 (paragraph 14).

Service of the foreign proceedings

The CPC does not prescribe any specific mode through which the defendant must have been served with the proceedings before the foreign court. The validity of service is governed by the procedural laws of the foreign court, however, any improper or inadequate service allows the defendant to resist enforcement in India under section 13(d) of the CPC.

India is a party to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 1965 (“Hague Convention on Service”). However, India has objected to all alternative channels of service under Article 10 of the Hague Convention on Service, including direct postal service, service through judicial officers or competent persons of the state of origin, and service at the instance of any interested person. Accordingly, the service on a defendant in India must be routed through India’s Central Authority; i.e., the Ministry of Law and Justice.

On the merits and natural justice

A judgment must reflect a substantive adjudication of the parties’ rights after evaluation of the evidence. A decree passed by default, or merely as a matter of form, or technically, is not considered to be passed on merits and therefore, is not conclusive: International Woollen Mills v Standard Wool (U.K.) Ltd (2001) 5 SCC 265 (paragraphs 17, 29, 30 and 33).

Applying the said principles recently, the Supreme Court refused to enforce an English summary judgment passed after the leave to defend filed by the defendant was refused despite there being bona fide triable issues. It was held that the said judgment was neither on the merits nor consistent with the principles of natural justice: Griesheim GMBH 2026 SCC OnLine SC 648 (paragraphs 52, 53 and 87).

Natural justice concerns procedural fairness — i.e., proper notice and a real opportunity to be heard — and not the correctness of the decision: Sankaran Govindan v. Lakshmi Bharathi (1975) 3 SCC 351 (paragraph 40).

Time limits

For the enforcement of the decree passed by the Superior Court of the reciprocating territories, the period of limitation is governed by the law of the country in which the said decree was passed, i.e., the “cause country”; once the said period of limitation is exhausted, execution in India is barred. However, where the decree holder first takes steps in aid of execution in the “cause country”, the residuary period of three years as provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”) runs from the conclusion of those proceedings: Bank of Baroda v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd (2020) 17 SCC 798 (paragraphs 40, 41, 42 and 44).

For the execution of judgments passed by non-reciprocating territories, a fresh suit has to be filed within three years from the date of the foreign judgment as provided under Article 101 of the Limitation Act.

No re-trial on merits

Under section 13 of the CPC, while recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments, the Indian courts do not sit in appeal and, therefore, cannot re-open the dispute on its merits; the enquiry is limited to the gateways enumerated in the said provision: Alcon Electronics (P) Ltd. v. Celem S.A. of France (2017) 2 SCC 253 (paragraphs 14 and 15).

The foreign awards are governed by Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), Chapter I of which (sections 44–52) implements the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958 (“New York Convention, 1958”) and Chapter II (sections 53–60) implements Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1927 (“Geneva Convention, 1927”).

For the purpose of Part II of the Arbitration Act, a foreign award must arise out of a commercial legal relationship and must be passed in a territory that India has notified as convention country.

Enforcement of the foreign award is a single integrated proceeding. First the Court examines the enforceability under section 48 of the Arbitration Act and once satisfied, the award is deemed a decree under section 49 of the Arbitration Act and the same is executed as such. There is no separate suit that has to be filed to have the award declared enforceable before execution: Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd (2020) 10 SCC 1 (paragraph 83.7); Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd v. Jindal Exports Ltd (2001) 6 SCC 356 (paragraphs 31 and 32).

Under the scheme of section 48 of the Arbitration Act exhaustive grounds, mirroring Article V of the New York Convention, 1958, are provided upon which enforcement can be refused. The said grounds are:

• incapacity of a party;
• invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• lack of proper notice or inability to present one’s case;
• the award exceeding the scope of the submission;
• irregular composition of the tribunal or procedure;
• the award not yet being binding, or having been set aside or suspended at the seat;
• non-arbitrability; and
• conflict with the public policy of India.

The burden of proof to establish that the award is not enforceable on one or more of these grounds lies on the award debtor.

The aforementioned grounds are exhaustive, and the Indian courts do not possess any power to refuse enforcement on any other ground. Ambiguity in the award, a procedural irregularity other than the principles of natural justice, or an alleged error of law or fact are no grounds for resistance; a pending challenge before the Seat Court can at most support a stay on enforcement.

A foreign award, once found enforceable, is a deemed decree. The Supreme Court [Vedanta (2020) 10 SCC 1 (paragraphs 72 and 76)] has held that the limitation for enforcing a foreign award will be governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act which is three years. The Supreme Court further held that even though a foreign award is a deemed decree once the enforcing court finds no ground to deny enforcement, the 12-year limitation period applicable to the enforcement of decrees passed by Indian courts does not apply to it. as it is not itself a decree of an Indian civil court, the period of limitation to seek enforcement is the three-year period from the date of accrual of the right to apply, as provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and not the 12-year period provided for execution of a decree passed by the civil courts in India under Article 136 of the Limitation Act: Vedanta (2020) 10 SCC 1 (paragraphs 72 and 76).

Enforcement of a Geneva Convention Award is subject to analogous but distinct conditions. These conditions include the requirement that the award has become final in the country in which it was made and that its recognition is not contrary to Indian public policy.

Public policy — a narrow gateway

The exception for enforcement under the heading “Public policy of India” under section 48 bears the restricted meaning as laid down by the Supreme Court in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd v. General Electric Co. 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644 wherein it was held that enforcement may be refused only where it would be contrary to (i) the fundamental policy of Indian law; (ii) the interests of India; or (iii) justice or morality (paragraph 66).

Subsequent explanations inserted into section 48(2) by the 2015 Amendment of the Arbitration Act clarified that a foreign Award conflicts with the Public Policy of India only if (i) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption; (ii) it contravenes the fundamental policy of Indian law; or (iii) it conflicts with the most basic notions of morality or justice; and that the fundamental policy test does not entail a review of the dispute on its merits.

The enforcing court does not sit in appeal over the award; it cannot review the foreign award on merits or take a second look at the dispute: Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. (2024) 7 SCC 197 (paragraph 24)

The “patent illegality” ground which is available when setting aside a domestic arbitral award does not apply to a foreign award: Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano SpA (2014) 2 SCC 433 (paragraphs 30 and 47).

Contravention of any provision of an enactment is not synonymous to contravention of fundamental policy of Indian law. “Fundamental policy of Indian law” refers to the principles and the legislative policy on which Indian statutes and laws are founded. For example, a rectifiable breach of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 is no bar to the enforcement: Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL (2020) 11 SCC 1 (paragraphs 87 and 88).

The Supreme Court in NAFED v. Alimenta S.A. (2020) 19 SCC 260 (paragraphs 69, 70 and 82) refused the enforcement of a foreign award where performance of the contract had become forbidden under Indian law; however, said refusal was confined to the facts of the case and was not a review on the merits of the award.

Scope of enforcement

A foreign award can be enforced against a non-signatory of the Arbitration Agreement. Whether a party is bound by the award or not is determined by the award itself and cannot be reopened at the stage of enforcement unless a ground under section 48 of the Arbitration Act is made out: Gemini Bay Transcription (P) Ltd v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd (2022) 1 SCC 753 (paragraphs 38, 39, 43, 50 and 61).

In a significant 2026 decision, the Supreme Court recognised and applied the principle of “transnational issue estoppel”. It was held that where the issue has been finally decided on merits between the same parties by the competent Court at the seat of the Arbitration, the award debtor cannot re-agitate it before the Indian Courts at the enforcement stage under section 48 of the Arbitration Act: Nagaraj V. Mylandla v. PI Opportunities Fund-I 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1218 (paragraphs 60, 76 and 83).

An enforcing court has no power to modify a foreign award, or to set it aside; its jurisdiction under section 48 of the Arbitration Act is confined to enforcing the award or refusing enforcement, the power to annul a foreign award vesting only in the courts at the seat of the arbitration: Vedanta (2020) 10 SCC 1 (paragraph 83.11).

Which courts are responsible

Foreign awards. As per the Explanation to section 47 of the Arbitration Act, an enforcement petition has to be filed before the High Court having original jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the arbitral award if the same had been the subject matter of a suit in its original civil jurisdiction, and, in other cases, before the High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of courts subordinate to such High Court. Where a foreign award is for a sum of money, the “subject matter of the award” under Section 47 of the Arbitration Act corresponds to the location of the award debtor’s assets; consequently, the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction such assets lie is the competent forum for enforcement: Pasl Wind Solutions (P) Ltd. v. GE Power Conversion (India) (P) Ltd., (2021) 7 SCC 1 (paragraphs 8, 93 and 96 ); Rishima Sa Investments LLC v. Shristi Infrastructure Development Corpn. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3341 (paragraphs 53, 56, 57, and 66).

Foreign decrees. The execution petition for reciprocating territories under section 44A can be filed before the court having subject matter jurisdiction or where the assets of the judgment debtor are situated. Where the value of a decree exceeds the pecuniary limit of the civil court, it must be filed on the original side of the High Court. similarly, a fresh suit for non-reciprocating territories can be instituted, a fortiori.

Documents and process

Foreign sward. As per section 47 of the Arbitration Act, an application for enforcement of a foreign award shall be accompanied by the original award or a duly authenticated copy, the original Arbitration Agreement or a certified copy, and evidence of the award’s foreign character and certified translations where documents are not in English.

Foreign decree. As per section 44A(2) of the CPC, a certificate from such superior court stating the extent, if any, to which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted shall be filed together with the certified copy of the decree, and such certificate shall, for the purposes of proceedings under this section, be conclusive proof of the extent of such satisfaction or adjustment.

Court fees

Execution petitions, irrespective of whether they are a petition to enforce a foreign award under the Arbitration Act or a petition for execution of a decree under section 44A of the CPC, attract a nominal fixed court fee. However, an ad valorem court fee is payable on a fresh suit instituted on a judgment passed by a non-reciprocating territory, or a decree which is non enforceable under section 44A of the CPC, which varies based on the jurisdiction of the court where the suit has to be filed.

Timing

An uncontested enforcement can conclude within reasonable time. A contested matter with section 48 or section 13 objections and appeals commonly takes two to four years or longer, though the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 framework is intended to compress timelines.

In practice, the Court hears any section 48 or section 13 objections first; only if the award or decree is found enforceable does it proceed, as a deemed/executable decree, to execution under Order XXI of the CPC. The award/decree holder need not commence two separate proceedings for recognition and enforcement.

Foreign Awards. Under section 50 of the Arbitration Act, an appeal lies against the Order refusing the enforcement of a foreign Award, and no appeal is maintainable against the Order enforcing a foreign Award. Further, no second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section. However, the right to file a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not affected by the said limitation.

Foreign Decree and fresh suits. Ordinary appellate rights apply to a decree passed in a suit on a foreign judgment; questions arising in execution are dealt with under section 47 and Order XXI of the CPC, with the usual rights of appeal or revision. The executing court cannot go behind the decree, but it may decline to execute a decree that is a nullity.

An appeal does not automatically stay enforcement. A stay of execution is discretionary and, in practice, usually conditional.

Under Order XXI rule 41 of the CPC, the executing courts are empowered to summon or orally examine the judgment debtor on oath regarding its property and means and to pass a direction for filing of the affidavit disclosing assets.

Further, the courts can make disclosure orders against the judgment debtor and also against the third parties, including banks and other custodians, in the aid of execution, ancillary to a freezing order.

Non-compliance may result in attachment of property, detention of the judgment debtor, and imposition of a fine. Further, proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 can also be initiated.

For foreign seated arbitrations, section 9 of the Arbitration Act is available by virtue of the proviso to section 2(2) of the Arbitration Act, unless the parties have specifically agreed to exclude the same. By virtue of section 9, Indian Courts can secure assets located in India before or during the arbitration and after the award, pending its enforcement. Relief in the form of deposit, attachment, or disclosure can be granted by the Court to secure the interest of the Decree Holder: Essar House (P) Ltd v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1219.

The mere choice of a foreign seat, foreign governing law or institutional rules is not, by itself, an agreement to exclude section 9; clear words are required to oust the Indian Court’s power to grant interim protection.

Independent of section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the enforcing civil courts also have wide powers under the CPC for the preservation of assets which includes attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII rule 5 where the defendant is about to dispose of or remove property with intent to obstruct or delay execution; a temporary injunction restraining alienation or dissipation of property under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2; appoint a receiver to preserve and manage assets under Order XL; and, in execution, attach the judgment-debtor’s assets under Order XXI.

Further, institutional emergency arbitration mechanisms may provide an additional avenue for interim protection. In Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd. (2022) 1 SCC 209, the Supreme Court held that an order passed by an emergency arbitrator under the SIAC Rules is an order of an arbitral tribunal within the meaning of section 17(1) of the Arbitration Act and is enforceable under section 17(2).

Indian courts exercise jurisdiction over the assets and persons within India.

Once a foreign award is deemed to be a decree under section 49 of the Arbitration Act, or a foreign Decree is filed under section 44A, enforcement proceeds under Order XXI of the CPC. The principal mechanism for recovery of the Decretal amount is attachment followed by sale, if necessary.

Bank accounts

Attachment by a prohibitory or garnishee Order under Order XXI rule 46 read with rule 46A of the CPC directs the Bank not to make payment to the judgment debtor and to hold or pay the balance to the court; a garnishee order can require the bank to pay the attached credit balance towards the decretal amount.

Shares

Shares and other securities are attached under Order XXI rule 46(1)(b) of the CPC by notice to the company or depository prohibiting transfer and dividends, followed by sale of the attached securities.

Debts due to the judgment debtor from third parties

Under garnishee proceedings under Order XXI rule 46 read with rule 46A of the CPC, the third-party debtor is prohibited from paying the judgment debtor and may be ordered to pay the debt to the court in satisfaction of the decree.

Real estate

Immovable property is attached under Order XXI rule 54 of the CPC and then sold by public auction under rules 64 to 66; the judgment debtor’s saleable interest in the property is what is sold.

Moveable property

Moveable property is attached by actual seizure or by prohibitory order passed under Order XXI rule 43 of the CPC.

Yes. Enforcement can extend to such assets, provided the judgment debtor’s beneficial or proprietary interest is adequately established. Execution reaches property in which the judgment debtor has a real, saleable interest; a purely nominal or ostensible arrangement will not, by itself, shield assets that beneficially belong to the debtor.

Courts may lift the corporate veil to reach assets held by an alter ego or interposed entity, particularly where the structure has been used to frustrate enforcement. The Bombay High Court has upheld attachment of an asset (coal) standing in the name of a group company on a finding that the transfer to it was sham and executed only to defeat the award, leaving the group company to its remedy under Order XXI rule 58. The veil will not, however, be pierced against a non-party company without giving it notice: Bhatia Global Trading Limited v. Asian Natural Resources (India)) Limited 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 10696 (paragraphs 16 and 17).

Where the disposition is a genuine transfer and not a sham, the creditor’s remedy is clawback by avoidance. A transfer of immovable property made to defeat or delay creditors is voidable at the option of the creditor affected (including the decree holder) subject to protection for a transferee in good faith and for value: L.K. Prabhu v. K.T. Mathew 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2577 (paragraph 10.3), and once property is attached, any private transfer of it contrary to the attachment is void against claims enforceable under the attachment.

The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, constrains reliance on benami (name-lender) holdings. Reaching assets held benami is fact-sensitive and may require separate proceedings; establishing beneficial ownership typically calls for cogent evidence.

The court may attach and sell the judgment debtor’s undivided share or interest in jointly owned property. The purchaser takes the judgment debtor’s interest subject to the rights of the co-owners and may work out those rights, if necessary, through a suit for partition.

Partnership property cannot be attached or sold for a partner’s personal debt in the ordinary way. Under Order XXI rule 49 CPC, the court instead makes an order charging the debtor partner’s interest in the partnership property and profits and may appoint a receiver of that partner’s share of the profits; the other partners are at liberty to redeem the charged interest.