High Court as Proper Forum to Enforce Domestic Award from International Commercial Arbitration Seated in India

Introduction

The interface between the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 continues to generate complex jurisdictional questions, particularly in matters concerning enforcement of arbitral awards arising out of international commercial arbitration seated in India. One such crucial question is namely, which court is the proper forum for enforcement of a domestic arbitral award rendered in an international commercial arbitration which has been authoritatively answered by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, in Shri Colonizers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Abha Gupta, Special Appeal No. 394 of 2025, decided on 16 December 2025. The judgment is significant as it clarifies the scope of Sections 2(1)(e), 2(2), and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with Section 10 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and settles an issue that had given rise to divergent interpretations before different fora.

Factual Background and Procedural History

The dispute arose from an arbitral award rendered in an international commercial arbitration where the seat of arbitration was within India. It was undisputed between the parties that although the arbitration qualified as an international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award itself was a domestic award, not a foreign award. Following the passing of the arbitral award, the award-holder initially approached the District Commercial Court by filing an execution application under Section 36 of the 1996 Act. Objections were raised as to the maintainability of the execution petition before the District Commercial Court, leading the award-holder to withdraw the proceedings and refile the enforcement application before the Commercial Division of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow.

The Commercial Division rejected the objections raised by the judgment-debtor and held that the High Court was the competent forum to entertain the enforcement petition. Aggrieved by this determination, the judgment-debtor preferred a Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

Maintainability of the Special Appeal

At the threshold, the Division Bench examined whether the Special Appeal itself was maintainable. The parties were ad idem that neither the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 nor the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provided for any further statutory appeal against the order passed by the Commercial Division. Upon examining Chapter VIII Rule 5, the Court held that since the Single Judge had exercised original jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and not appellate, revisional, supervisory, or writ jurisdiction, the exclusionary clauses did not apply. Consequently, the Special Appeal was held to be maintainable.

Core Issue for Determination

The central question before the Division Bench was whether a domestic arbitral award arising out of an international commercial arbitration seated in India is enforceable before the District Commercial Court or exclusively before the Commercial Division of the High Court.

Statutory Scheme under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The Court commenced its analysis by examining Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which provides that an arbitral award shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court. The Court reiterated the settled position that an arbitral award is not a decree by itself, but is enforceable as if it were a decree. Importantly, Section 36 does not specify the forum before which such enforcement is to be sought, necessitating recourse to the definition of the term “Court” under the Act.

The Court then turned to Section 2(1)(e) of the 1996 Act, which defines “Court” differently for domestic arbitrations and international commercial arbitrations. In cases other than international commercial arbitration, jurisdiction vests in the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a district. However, in cases of international commercial arbitration, Section 2(1)(e)(ii) mandates that the “Court” shall be the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction, and in other cases, the High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of courts subordinate to it.

Applicability of Part I and the Seat of Arbitration

Relying on Section 2(2) of the Act, and the Constitution Bench judgment in Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (BALCO), as well as the three-Judge Bench decision in PASL Wind Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. GE Power Conversion India Pvt. Ltd., the Court reaffirmed that Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to arbitrations seated in India, including international commercial arbitrations. Since the seat of arbitration in the present case was in India, Sections 2(1)(e) and 36, both forming part of Part I, were fully applicable.

The Court clarified that the Allahabad High Court does not exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction; however, it undoubtedly possesses appellate jurisdiction over decrees passed by subordinate courts. Consequently, the case squarely fell within the second limb of Section 2(1)(e)(ii), thereby conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the High Court to entertain enforcement proceedings.

Rejection of the District Court Jurisdiction Argument

The appellant’s principal contention was that since enforcement proceedings are to be conducted in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, and since civil decrees are ordinarily executed by district courts, the District Commercial Court should be treated as the appropriate forum. The Court categorically rejected this argument, holding that Section 36 cannot be read in isolation. The procedural reference to the Code of Civil Procedure does not override the substantive definition of “Court” under Section 2(1)(e). To accept the appellant’s contention would amount to rendering Section 2(1)(e)(ii) otiose in the context of international commercial arbitration.

Distinction Between Domestic Awards and Foreign Awards

The Court further addressed the appellant’s reliance on the Explanation inserted to Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the 2016 Amendment Act. It was argued that since Section 47 expressly provides for enforcement of foreign awards before the High Court, the legislative intent must have been to relegate enforcement of all other awards to the District Commercial Courts.

Rejecting this submission, the Court held that Section 47 falls under Part II of the Act, which exclusively governs foreign awards. Part II contains its own enforcement mechanism and required a specific definition of “Court,” which necessitated the insertion of the Explanation in 2016. The definition of “Court” under Section 2(1)(e), which forms part of Part I, is wholly inapplicable to Part II. Accordingly, no negative inference can be drawn from the amendment to Section 47 with respect to domestic awards arising out of international commercial arbitration.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Section 10

The Court also examined Section 10 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, particularly sub-section (1), which provides that in cases of international commercial arbitration, all applications arising out of such arbitration filed in the High Court shall be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division. The Court observed that sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 10 are confined to arbitrations other than international commercial arbitration and therefore have no application to the present case. Section 10(1), being procedural in nature, reinforces the jurisdictional scheme under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act rather than altering it.

Precedents Relied Upon

In arriving at its conclusion, the Division Bench placed reliance on authoritative precedents, including Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd., Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Samad, the Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in ITI Ltd. v. Alphion Corporation, the Gujarat High Court decision in OCI Corporation v. Kandla Export Corporation, and earlier decisions of the Allahabad High Court, including Lucknow Agencies v. U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad. The Court clarified that the decision in Sundaram Finance Ltd. did not apply to the peculiar jurisdictional issue arising in the present case.

Final Decision

After an exhaustive analysis of the statutory framework, legislative intent, and binding judicial precedents, the Division Bench held that the Commercial Division of the High Court is the only competent forum for enforcement of a domestic arbitral award arising out of an international commercial arbitration seated in India. The Special Appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the order of the Single Judge was affirmed.

Conclusion and Author’s Opinion

The judgment in Shri Colonizers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Abha Gupta is a significant and welcome clarification in Indian arbitration jurisprudence. By reaffirming the primacy of Section 2(1)(e)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Allahabad High Court has ensured doctrinal consistency with the seat-based approach endorsed in BALCO and PASL Wind Solutions. The decision eliminates forum ambiguity and prevents parallel enforcement proceedings before district and high courts, thereby promoting certainty, efficiency, and judicial discipline in enforcement of arbitral awards. In the author’s opinion, the ruling strengthens India’s pro-arbitration framework by aligning procedural enforcement mechanisms with the substantive classification of international commercial arbitration, and will serve as a persuasive precedent for courts across jurisdictions dealing with similar enforcement disputes.

For more insights, analysis, and updates on arbitration and ADR developments, connect with adrEdge or visit our platform. Write us @contact@adredge.com