From Arbitration to Enforcement: How Are Arbitral Awards Enforced in India and Abroad?

Abstract

Arbitration is often selected because it offers parties a private and comparatively flexible method of resolving disputes. Yet the value of an arbitral process depends not only on the tribunal's decision but also on whether the successful party can obtain the relief granted. This paper examines the legal journey from an arbitral award to its enforcement, focusing on domestic awards in India and foreign awards sought to be enforced in India. It analyses the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly Sections 34-36 and Sections 44-49, alongside the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958 (New York Convention). It considers the distinction between setting aside a domestic award and resisting enforcement of a foreign award, the limited role of public policy, and the Supreme Court's approach in Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano SpA, Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, and Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL. The paper argues that Indian law generally supports finality while preserving safeguards for serious legal and procedural defects. Its central concern is the gap between an award becoming legally enforceable and the successful party actually receiving relief. It concludes that consistent judicial reasoning, proportionate case management, accessible procedural guidance, and effective execution practice are necessary to make enforcement more predictable without weakening legitimate safeguards.