The enforcing High Court must execute a foreign award as its deemed decree.

The petitioner filed an application under Sections 44–49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) seeking enforcement of a foreign award dated 26 August 2022 rendered by sole arbitrator J. Hawkins in GAFTA Arbitration Case No. 18-634.

After hearing the parties on enforceability, the High Court, by order dated 8 May 2026, rejected the respondent’s objections and held that the award was enforceable as a decree of the Court under Section 49 of the 1996 Act.

At the subsequent stage concerning execution, the respondent objected that the High Court did not exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction and lacked the necessary execution machinery, including a Nazarat Department.

It contended that, under Sections 38 and 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), the award-decree should be transferred to the competent District or Commercial Court for execution.

The petitioner argued that the same High Court which determined enforceability was required to execute the foreign award and that enforcement and execution could proceed in a single composite proceeding, relying principally on Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. and Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd.

Whether, after declaring a foreign arbitral award enforceable under Section 49 of the 1996 Act, the High Court is competent to execute it as a deemed decree of that Court, notwithstanding the absence of ordinary original civil jurisdiction?

Whether the foreign award should be transferred under Sections 38 and 39 of the CPC to a subordinate court merely because the High Court lacks a separate execution department or practical execution machinery?

Whether enforcement and execution of a foreign award may be pursued in one composite proceeding without instituting separate proceedings?

Sections 47–49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 govern the recognition and enforcement of New York Convention foreign awards.

Under the Explanation to Section 47, the competent “Court” is the concerned High Court; once the Court is satisfied that the award is enforceable, Section 49 gives it the status of a deemed decree of “that Court”.

The Supreme Court in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., (2001) 6 SCC 356, and Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd., (2020) 10 SCC 1, held that enforcement and execution may proceed in a single composite proceeding: after deciding enforceability under Sections 47 and 48, the same Court may take effective steps for execution under Order XXI of the CPC.

Sections 38 and 39 CPC permit transfer of a decree for execution, but such transfer is discretionary and need not occur at the outset where the Court that declared the foreign award enforceable can itself proceed with execution.

The Court held that the award had already crossed the enforceability stage when, by its order dated 8 May 2026, it rejected the respondent’s objections under the 1996 Act.

Section 49 consequently made the award a deemed decree of the same High Court, and not a decree requiring fresh conversion or a separate enforcement proceeding.

Applying Fuerst Day Lawson and Vedanta, the Court reasoned that the statutory scheme favours one proceeding involving first the determination of enforceability and thereafter execution, thereby avoiding multiplicity and delay.

The respondent’s reliance on Sections 38 and 39 CPC was rejected because the absence of ordinary original jurisdiction or immediate execution infrastructure did not divest the High Court of competence to execute its deemed decree.

A transfer to another competent court could be considered later if practical difficulties actually arose, but there was no justification for issuing a transfer certificate at that stage.

It declined to transfer the award under Section 39 CPC at that stage, while reserving the possibility of transfer if practical difficulties arose during execution.

The Court directed its office to register the matter as a Miscellaneous Civil Case for execution under Order XXI CPC and listed it for further proceedings before the roster bench.