ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARDS IN INDIA: PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES & JUDICIAL APPROACH

Arbitration is designed to give commercial parties a quick, efficient, and definitive way to settle disputes. However, the real effectiveness of arbitration hinges not just on the tribunal's ability to make a decision, but also on how well the winning party can enforce that decision. In India, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 lays out distinct processes for enforcing both domestic and foreign arbitral awards. Section 36 allows for the enforcement of domestic awards just like a court decree, while Sections 47-49 outline how foreign awards can be recognized and enforced. The legal landscape has seen some major changes, especially after the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act of 2015. One key change was the removal of the automatic stay that used to occur when a Section 34 application was filed, which aimed to stop unsuccessful parties from stalling enforcement simply by starting challenge proceedings. At the same time, judicial rulings have tightened the reins on judicial interference by limiting the public-policy defense, discouraging reviews of the merits, and treating the enforcement of foreign awards as a more controlled supervisory task. That said, there are still some significant procedural hurdles to overcome. Section 34 proceedings can drag on for a long time; stay applications can hold up recovery; and executing under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 brings its own set of challenges typical of ordinary decree execution. Plus, parties might try to revive failed challenges during execution proceedings. When it comes to enforcing foreign awards, there are additional concerns about jurisdiction, public policy, natural justice, limitations, and how the supervisory authority of the seat interacts with the enforcing court. Enforcement against government and public-sector entities adds another layer of complexity to the mix. This paper dives into these issues by exploring the statutory framework and key rulings from the Supreme Court of India. It charts the journey from a broad interpretation of public policy in landmark cases like ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. to a more measured approach seen in Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano S.p.A., Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. v. National Highways Authority of India, and Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL. Additionally, it looks at the territorial approach set forth in Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services, Inc., along with the recent Constitution Bench ruling in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd., which addresses the limited authority of courts to alter arbitral awards. The paper contends that while Indian arbitration law has made significant strides toward finality and reduced judicial interference, ongoing procedural and institutional challenges still hinder effective recovery. Therefore, the next phase of reform should not only aim to tighten the grounds for challenges but also enhance stay, execution, judicial case management, and accountability mechanisms.