M/S Royal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd vs M/S National Projects Construction Corporation

2026 INSC 1167
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14005 of 2026)

M/S ROYAL CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY PVT. LTD. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS
M/S NATIONAL PROJECTS
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION …RESPONDENT(S)
AND
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION @ DIARY NO. 48152 OF
2026 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1991 OF 2019

J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 14005 of 2026
1. Leave granted.

2. Heard Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Vikramjit
Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the respondent.
th
3. The present appeal assails the interim order dated 16
February, 2026, passed by the High Court of Delhi at
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2026.10.28
16:49:47 IST
Reason:
C.A. @ SLP (C) NO. 14005 of 2026 1

1
New Delhi in Execution First Appeal (Original Side) No.
17 of 2018, whereby the parties were granted liberty to
seek clarification from this Court as to why the fact that
the principal amount had already been paid in Indian
Rupees in 2009, pursuant to the orders passed by the
High Court, had not been brought to its notice on an
earlier occasion when this Court had the opportunity
to consider and answer the substantial question of law
framed by the High Court under Article 134-A read with
Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
4. The brief facts relevant to the disposal of the present
appeal are as follows:
4.1. The appellant is the award-holder, while the
respondent is the award-debtor. Pursuant to an
internationally seated arbitration, an arbitral award
th
dated 10 August, 2002, was rendered in favour of
the appellant, with the amounts awarded
denominated in Iraqi Dinars.
4.2. The award was challenged before the Indian courts,
culminating in proceedings before this Court. By
th
judgment dated 24 February, 2015, this Court
underscored the principle of minimal judicial
intervention in arbitral awards, holding that the
courts ought not to substitute their own subjective

1
Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
C.A. @ SLP (C) NO. 14005 of 2026 2

satisfaction for that of the arbitral tribunal unless the
statutory grounds for interference under Sections 34
and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
are made out. Accordingly, this Court restored the
th
directions contained in the award dated 10 August,
2002.
4.3. Thereafter, the appellant initiated execution
proceedings before the High Court. By order dated
th
26 July, 2017, the High Court directed that the
award-debtor could discharge its liability in Indian
currency, with the conversion to be made at the
exchange rate prevailing on the date of the underlying
th
agreement, i.e., 26 September, 1982.
4.4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant
preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the
th
High Court. By order dated 17 December, 2019, the
Division Bench set aside the order passed by the
Single Judge and certified a substantial question of
law of general importance under Articles 134-A and
133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India for
consideration by this Court. The question, being
germane to the controversy, is reproduced
hereinbelow: -
th
“In terms of the agreement dated 29 June, 1982,
between the parties and in light of the judgment
th
dated 24 February, 2015 of the Supreme Court of
India in Civil Appeal Nos. 2543-44/2015, what
C.A. @ SLP (C) NO. 14005 of 2026 3

should be the relevant date for conversion of
awarded sum from USD to Indian rupees?”
th
4.5. By judgment dated 10 October, 2023, this Court
answered the aforesaid question in the negative,
holding that no occasion arose for determining or
fixing a date for conversion of US Dollars into Indian
Rupees (INR). This Court further cautioned that the
terms of the agreement, the arbitral award, and the
th
directions contained in its judgment dated 24
February, 2015, ought not to be disturbed.
4.6. Thereafter, the appellant continued to pursue the
execution proceedings before the High Court. While
those proceedings were pending, the respondent
contended that the principal amount had already
been paid in 2009 pursuant to the orders passed by
th
the High Court. By an interim order dated 16
February, 2026, the High Court granted liberty to the
parties to seek clarification from this Court in that
regard.
5. Hence, the appellant is before us.
6. We have perused the material on record and considered
the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties.
7. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench has
fallen into error in appreciating the scope of the
controversy previously adjudicated by this Court. A
th
perusal of the judgment dated 10 October, 2023,
C.A. @ SLP (C) NO. 14005 of 2026 4

makes it evident that this Court, while exercising
appellate jurisdiction, was called upon to answer the
substantial question of law of general importance
certified by the High Court. The scope of consideration
was, therefore, confined to answering the question so
referred, without undertaking an examination of
factual matters beyond its ambit.
8. Having held that no occasion arose for determining or
fixing a date for conversion of the amount into Indian
Rupees and that payment was to be made in foreign
currency, this Court had no occasion to issue any
further clarification on factual questions concerning
the amounts deposited or their subsequent withdrawal.
9. The order of the executing court was assailed before the
Division Bench of the High Court, which, upon
certifying a substantial question of law of general
importance under Articles 134-A and 133(1)(a) of the
Constitution, referred the question to this Court. The
jurisdiction exercised by this Court was confined to
answering that question. This Court cannot be called
upon, in the guise of seeking clarification, to assume a
supervisory role over the continuing execution
proceedings or to adjudicate upon every issue that may
arise therein. It is for the competent court seized of the
execution proceedings, and the appellate court
exercising jurisdiction over its orders, to determine the
questions arising in accordance with law.
C.A. @ SLP (C) NO. 14005 of 2026 5

10. Once the substantial question of law referred to this
Court stood answered, the scope of the earlier appellate
proceedings stood exhausted. It would be
impermissible to enlarge the scope of that adjudication
by seeking answers to questions that are distinct from,
and unconnected with, the lis previously decided.
Epilogue:
11. Before parting, we deem it appropriate to express our
concern at the protracted course which the present
proceedings have taken. The arbitration in the present
case was invoked when the Arbitration Act, 1940 held
the field. We are now approaching three decades under
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, enacted,
inter alia , in furtherance of the UNCITRAL Model Law
and with the objective of facilitating the expeditious
resolution of disputes through minimal judicial
intervention. However, more than twenty-four years
after the arbitral award was rendered, the parties
continue to litigate over its enforcement. Such a state
of affairs strikes at the very rationale underlying the
adoption of arbitration as an effective alternative to
conventional civil litigation.
12. The efficacy of an arbitral regime cannot be measured
merely by the expedition with which an award is
rendered or the circumscribed grounds upon which it
may be challenged. It must equally be assessed by the
C.A. @ SLP (C) NO. 14005 of 2026 6

ability of the successful party to realise the fruits of the
award within a reasonable time. The promise of
arbitration remains unfulfilled if a party, having
traversed the arbitral process, is compelled to embark
upon another protracted course of litigation to secure
the benefit of the award.
13. While the statutory framework governing arbitration
has sought to address delays in arbitral proceedings,
challenges to awards and the grant of stays on their
enforcement, the process of actual execution warrants
equally serious consideration. Section 36 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for
enforcement of an arbitral award in the same manner
as a decree of the Court, thereby drawing upon the
ordinary machinery of execution under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. The experience of cases such as the
present one calls for a closer examination of whether
this framework adequately serves the objectives of
arbitration. In particular, the identification and
disclosure of the award-debtor’s assets, the
coordination of different modes of execution, the
disposal of repetitive or dilatory objections, and the
time taken to conclude execution proceedings merit
focused scrutiny. Comparative legal systems may offer
useful insights into more effective and coordinated
enforcement mechanisms, while preserving the
C.A. @ SLP (C) NO. 14005 of 2026 7

legitimate procedural safeguards available to
judgment-debtors.
14. In these circumstances, we request the Law
Commission of India to undertake a focused study of
the statutory and procedural framework governing the
enforcement and execution of arbitral awards. The
study may identify the practical impediments to timely
recovery, examine the experience of other jurisdictions,
and consider whether domestic and foreign arbitral
awards warrant distinct enforcement procedures or a
common framework with appropriate safeguards. The
Commission may, upon such examination, make such
legislative or procedural recommendations as it
considers necessary to strengthen the execution regime
and ensure that the enforcement of arbitral awards is
commensurate with the objectives of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 and India’s commitment to
establishing itself as an arbitration-friendly
jurisdiction.
15. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
16. The Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to
the Hon’ble Chairman of the Law Commission of India.
17. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.




C.A. @ SLP (C) NO. 14005 of 2026 8

M.A. @ Diary No. 48152 of 2026 in Civil Appeal No. 1991
of 2019

18. M.A @ Dairy No. 48152 of 2026 is taken on board.
19. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed
by the appellant in the disposed of civil appeal, seeking
th
modification of the judgment dated 10 October, 2023,
on the ground that the amounts deposited by it, in its
capacity as the award-debtor, in Indian rupees
pursuant to the order of the High Court had already
been withdrawn by the respondent, the award-holder,
in 2009.
20. As already observed, the lis in the earlier appeal was
confined to the interpretation of the substantial
question of law of general importance. This Court was,
therefore, not called upon to adjudicate upon factual
questions concerning the amounts so deposited or their
subsequent withdrawal.
21. In view of the above, the Miscellaneous Application is
dismissed.
22. Needless to state, the applicant shall be at liberty to
raise all objections and contentions concerning the

C.A. @ SLP (C) NO. 14005 of 2026 9

adjustment or set-off of the aforesaid amounts before
the executing court, in accordance with law.

……………………………………J.
[VIKRAM NATH]


……………………………………J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]


……………………………………J.
[APARESH KUMAR SINGH]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 28, 2026
C.A. @ SLP (C) NO. 14005 of 2026 10