Apostilled Arbitral Awards From Hague Convention Signatory Countries Enforceable If Authenticity Undisputed: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has held that apostilled arbitral award copies (documents certified as genuine in countries with which India has reciprocal recognition of such authentication) are valid for enforcement where their authenticity is undisputed, while declaring a Texas-seated foreign award of USD 623,169.37 in favour of PerkinElmer US LLC enforceable.

Rejecting objections by Ilishan Biotech Private Limited on non-production of original documents, a single-judge bench of Justice Pawan Kumar Dwivedi said, “As India and the United State of America are signatories to the Hague Apostille Convention thus, there is reciprocity between the two countries regarding notarial acts of Notaries. This facts is clear from the memorandum of Ministry of External Affairs dated 18.11.2020 itself.”

It added, “Thus, as Section 14 only requires reciprocal arrangements and as in the present case, India and USA being signatories of the Hague Apostille Convention, in the considered view of this Court, the reciprocity as required under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952 is very much there.”

Rejecting the objection, the court held, “In view of the above analysis and the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi Kant Pandey, the objection regarding absence of original award / agreement and inadmissibility of apostille award and agreement is hereby rejected”.

The dispute arose from a 2015 distributorship agreement between Bioo Scientific Corporation and Ilishan Biotech. Payment defaults continued despite a 2019 restructuring of dues of about USD 637,000, leading to arbitration before the International Centre for Dispute Resolution in Austin, Texas.

On February 24, 2021, Sole Arbitrator Lucy Greenwood awarded USD 623,169.37 with interest. The award was later assigned to PerkinElmer, which sought enforcement under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The court noted that Ilishan never disputed the correctness of the award or agreement and that both carried valid apostille certifications. It also found that the respondent had adequate opportunity in arbitration but failed to comply with procedural requirements.

Reiterating the limited scope of enforcement, the Court held that merits cannot be revisited at this stage.

For Petitioner (PerkinElmer US LLC): Advocates Dinesh Pednekar, Amol Shrivastava, Harshvardhan Yadav.

For Respondent (Ilishan Biotech Private Limited): Advocates Vijay Kumar Assudani, Rakshit Assudani.