Recently, the Allahabad High Court held that a domestic arbitral award arising out of an international commercial arbitration is enforceable by the High Court itself under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Clarifying the forum for execution, the Court observed that “it is the High Court which is the ‘Court’ for filing an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for enforcement of a domestic award pertaining to an international commercial arbitration”.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a special appeal challenging an order issued in October 2025, passed by a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court acting as the Commercial Division in execution proceedings. The Single Judge had upheld the maintainability of an application filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the enforcement of an arbitral award. It was not in dispute that the award was a domestic award, though rendered in the course of an international commercial arbitration, with the seat of arbitration located in India. The central question before the Division Bench was limited yet consequential, identifying the court competent to enforce such an award, since Section 36 lays down the manner of enforcement but remains silent on the forum.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Appellants contended that since Section 36 mandates enforcement of an arbitral award “in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court” under the Code of Civil Procedure, such execution must necessarily lie before the District Commercial Court. It was argued that the legislative amendment introducing an Explanation to Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the enforcement of foreign awards implied that other awards arising out of international commercial arbitration were intended to be enforced at the district level. Reliance was placed on Section 10 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the Supreme Court decision in Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. Abdul Samad and Anr. to submit that arbitral proceedings terminate upon the passing of the award, requiring execution before the appropriate district forum.
On the other hand, the Respondents, submitted that a conjoint reading of Section 36 with Section 2(1)(e)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 clearly vested jurisdiction in the High Court, even where it lacks ordinary original civil jurisdiction, provided it has appellate jurisdiction over subordinate courts. It was argued that the Act makes a clear distinction between domestic arbitration and international commercial arbitration, and that for the latter, the High Court alone qualifies as the “Court” under Part I of the Act.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Rajeev Bharti made it clear that the forum for enforcement cannot be determined by looking at Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in isolation. Emphasising a conjoint reading of the statutory scheme, the Bench categorically held that “It is the High Court which is the ‘Court’ for filing an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for enforcement of a domestic award pertaining to an international commercial arbitration.”
The Court further observed that “Merely because it has to be enforced in accordance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court cannot lead us to conclude that such enforcement is to be done through the Commercial Court at the District level”.
The Bench clarified that Part I of the Act applies where the seat of arbitration is in India, including international commercial arbitrations, and that the definition of Court under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies uniformly within Part I, without drawing any distinction between party-centric or place-centric arbitrations. The Court also held that the amendment to Section 47 in Part II, dealing exclusively with foreign awards, cannot be used to infer legislative intent for domestic awards under Part I.
The Court clarified that where Part I of the 1996 Act applies, the definition of Court under Section 2(1)(e)(ii) governs enforcement proceedings, and jurisdiction cannot be shifted to district commercial courts merely because execution follows the CPC mechanism.
The decision of the Court:
The Court ultimately dismissed the special appeal, affirming the Single Judge’s order and holding that the High Court is the competent forum under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the enforcement of a domestic award arising from an international commercial arbitration.
Case Title: Shri Colonizers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. thru Director and Anr. Vs. Abha Gupta
Case No.: Special Appeal No. 394 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Roy, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Bharti
Advocate for the Petitioner/Appellant: Advs. Rajeev Sharan, Amal Rastogi, Devesh Bahadur Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Anurag Tyagi
Read Judgment@ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
