Foreign Award Can Be Enforced And Executed By High Court In A Single Proceeding: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 21 August held that a foreign arbitral award can be enforced and executed by the High Court in the same proceeding without requiring a separate execution case before a subordinate court.

Justice Vinay Saraf rejected the oral objections raised by Shri Mittal Agritech Pvt. Ltd. to execution of the foreign award obtained by Moshers, holding that once a foreign award is declared enforceable under Sections 47 and 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it becomes a deemed decree of the High Court under Section 49 and can be executed by the High Court itself. The Bench observed:

“As the definition of 'Court' in explanation to Section 47 provides that the High Court will be the competent Court for deciding the enforceability, the award is required to be executed by the High Court as the decree passed by the High Court. Therefore, the oral objections raised by the respondent are not tenable and are hereby rejected.”

The dispute arose from a foreign arbitral award dated 26 August 2022, passed by sole arbitrator J. Hawkins in GAFTA Arbitration Case No. 18-634 in a dispute between Moshers and Shri Mittal Agritech Pvt. Ltd.

Moshers approached the High Court under Sections 44 to 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which provide for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India. On 15 September 2025, the parties were directed to address the enforceability of the award.

By an order dated 8 May 2026, the High Court rejected Shri Mittal Agritech's objections and held that the 26 August 2022 award was enforceable as a decree of the Court. The matter was thereafter kept pending for further steps towards execution. Shri Mittal Agritech then raised a fresh oral objection to the execution of the award.

It argued that once the award became a deemed decree under Section 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, its execution had to follow Sections 38 and 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which govern execution of decrees and their transfer to another court.

Further, Shri Mittal Agritech contended that the High Court does not exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction and does not have execution machinery such as a Nazarat Department. It therefore argued that the decree should be transferred to a competent District Court or Commercial Court for execution.

Moshers opposed the objection, arguing that the law does not require separate proceedings for enforcement and execution of a foreign award. It submitted that once the High Court had declared the award enforceable, it could execute the award as a deemed decree in the same proceeding.

Justice Saraf accepted Moshers' contention. He noted that the award was a New York Convention award and explained that Sections 47 to 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act require the Court to first determine whether the foreign award is enforceable. Once the award is found enforceable, Section 49 treats it as a decree of that Court.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., the Bench reiterated that enforcement and execution are different stages of the same proceeding and do not require two separate cases.

It also rejected the argument that the absence of execution machinery prevented it from executing the award. It clarified that if any practical difficulty arises during execution, the decree can be transferred to a competent court at a later stage. However, it found no reason to issue a transfer certificate under Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure at this stage.

Accordingly, the High Court rejected Shri Mittal Agritech's objections and directed the Registry to register the matter as a Miscellaneous Civil Case for execution of the award under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure and place it before the roster Bench. It consequently closed the Arbitration Case.

Appearances for petitioner (Moshers): Advocates Shivansh Soni and Kanishka Gupta.

Appearances for respondent (Shri Mittal Agritech Pvt. Ltd.): Senior Advocate Veer Kumar Jain with Advocate Sanjay P. Joshi.