A foreign party alone does not make an award foreign; the arbitral seat determines enforceability.

The Decree Holder, M/s Shuba Enterprises, sought enforcement under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, of an arbitral award dated 10 January 2025.

The award directed the Judgment Debtor, M/s Gulf Petrochem FZC, an Abu Dhabi-based entity, to pay USD 40,000, ₹37 lakhs with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the statement of claim until payment, and ₹10 lakhs towards costs.

Although the presence of a foreign party made the arbitration an international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f), the award appeared to have been passed at New Delhi, and the arbitration agreement was not placed on record.

The Decree Holder stated that the Judgment Debtor’s assets were located in Mumbai, Maharashtra, raising a further issue concerning territorial jurisdiction for execution.

Upon the Court raising queries regarding maintainability under Section 48 and jurisdiction, the Decree Holder sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings before the competent court.

Whether the arbitral award was a “foreign award” enforceable under Section 48 and Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or was instead a domestic award arising from an international commercial arbitration seated in India.

Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain execution proceedings when the Judgment Debtor’s assets were stated to be located in Mumbai, Maharashtra.

Whether the Decree Holder could withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings before the competent court.

Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 defines an international commercial arbitration on the basis of the presence of a foreign party, whereas the character of an award as a foreign award is determined under Section 44 by reference to the seat or place where the award is made, the commercial nature of the dispute, a written arbitration agreement, and conduct of the arbitration in a New York Convention territory.

Part I governs arbitrations seated in India, while Part II, including Section 48, governs enforcement of foreign awards.

Relying on PASL Wind Solutions Private Limited v. GE Power Conversion India Private Limited, the Court held that Section 44 is party-neutral and that the nationality or residence of the parties does not by itself determine whether an award is foreign; the decisive consideration is the place or seat of arbitration.

The Court also referred to Sundaram Finance v. Abdul Samad for the principle that execution proceedings may be instituted directly before a court within whose jurisdiction the judgment debtor’s assets are located.

The Court distinguished between an international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f) and a foreign award under Section 44.

While the Judgment Debtor’s Abu Dhabi status prima facie made the arbitration international in character, that circumstance alone did not make the resulting award foreign.

Since the award appeared to have been passed at New Delhi and the arbitration agreement was unavailable, the Court prima facie treated it as a domestic award arising from an international commercial arbitration seated in India.

Such an award could not be enforced through Section 48 of Part II.

Independently, because the petition itself stated that the Judgment Debtor’s assets were in Mumbai, the Court required the Decree Holder to address whether Delhi was the proper forum for execution in light of Sundaram Finance.

The Court did not finally adjudicate either issue because the Decree Holder elected to withdraw the proceedings.

Consequently, O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 3/2026 and the pending applications were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Court’s observations regarding the award being prima facie domestic and the possible lack of Delhi’s execution jurisdiction were not final determinations on merits.