The role of national courts in reviewing arbitral awards, the significance of the arbitral seat, and the challenges of enforcing awards across jurisdictions were among the key issues discussed during a session at Asia ADR Week 2026, held at the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC), Kuala Lumpur.

Titled “Enforcing Arbitral Awards Against States: Insights from The Government of India v Vedanta Ltd.”, the session examined the legal principles emerging from the long-running Vedanta dispute and their implications for international arbitration, particularly the relationship between courts at the arbitral seat and courts in enforcement jurisdictions.

The session was moderated by Nereen Kaur Veriah of Atma Singh Veriah & Co. The speakers included YA Dato’ Lee Swee Seng, Judge of the Federal Court of Malaysia, as a special contributor; Ooi Huey Miin of Raja, Darryl & Loh; Dr Nitin Nadkarni of Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill; Kunal Vajani of the AIAC Court of Arbitration and Chambers of Kunal Vajani; and Lam Ko Luen of Shook Lin & Bok.

Opening the substantive discussion, Ooi Huey Miin provided an overview of the Government of India v Vedanta Ltd.proceedings, explaining that the dispute formed part of a series of challenges involving five arbitral awards arising from four arbitrations under the same production-sharing contract relating to the Ravva offshore oil field in the Bay of Bengal.

She traced the evolution of the Malaysian courts’ approach to setting aside arbitral awards over nearly two decades. The proceedings involved challenges under Malaysia’s earlier Arbitration Act 1952 and, subsequently, Section 37 of the Arbitration Act 2005.

The earlier proceedings raised questions concerning misconduct and errors of law on the face of an award. The later proceedings brought into focus the grounds for setting aside awards under the newer statutory framework, including jurisdiction, public policy and natural justice.

Ooi also explained how the dispute raised questions concerning the arbitral seat. In one of the proceedings, the parties disputed whether the seat of arbitration had been moved from Kuala Lumpur to London. The resulting decisions illustrated how the determination of the arbitral seat affects the jurisdiction of courts to entertain setting-aside applications.

The proceedings also had consequences in India, where awards arising from the dispute were subsequently taken up for enforcement. The case therefore provided a useful basis for examining the interaction between supervisory courts and courts asked to recognise or enforce awards in another jurisdiction.

Reflecting on his involvement in one of the challenges arising from the Vedanta dispute, Justice YA Dato’ Lee Swee Seng explained that the issue before him concerned the quantification of amounts allegedly due between the parties and the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to determine the dispute.

The Government of India had questioned whether the tribunal’s mandate had expired. The proceedings also concerned competing deductions made by the parties in relation to the amounts payable under the production-sharing arrangement.

Explaining the approach he adopted, Justice Lee stated:

He explained that the tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the issue and that he found no sufficient reason to interfere with the award. The application to set aside the award was accordingly dismissed.

The discussion subsequently turned to the extent to which national courts may review an arbitral tribunal’s decision on its own jurisdiction, particularly where a party contends that no valid arbitration agreement exists.

Justice Lee referred to the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, under which an arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction. He explained that a tribunal’s determination does not necessarily prevent a national court from examining the issue at the setting-aside or enforcement stage.

Referring to the Malaysian approach, he observed that a court considering the existence of a valid arbitration agreement may examine the issue independently. At the same time, he discussed the relevance of a decision already rendered by another court, particularly where the court at the arbitral seat has examined the issue and given reasons for its conclusion.

Justice Lee explained that, although a court remains free to disagree with an earlier determination, it may give due deference to findings already made after a thorough examination of the issue. His remarks brought the principle of transnational issue estoppel into the discussion and highlighted the importance of consistency in cross-border arbitration proceedings.

Dr Nitin Nadkarni discussed the implications of the Vedanta proceedings from the Indian perspective, focusing on the significance of the arbitral seat, the law governing the setting-aside proceedings, and the treatment of awards that have survived challenge before the competent court.

He explained that the proceedings had helped clarify the importance of respecting the curial law and the determinations of courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction over an arbitration.

Addressing the treatment of awards during enforcement, Dr Nadkarni stated:

Dr Nadkarni also highlighted the importance of limitation periods in enforcement proceedings. He explained that parties must consider the law applicable in the jurisdiction where enforcement is sought, including the relevant limitation requirements, and should prepare for enforcement before the award is rendered.

The panel also examined the difficulties that arise when an arbitral award concerns entities that did not sign the underlying arbitration agreement.

The discussion considered whether parent companies, subsidiaries or other related entities may be brought within the scope of arbitral proceedings or enforcement, particularly where they participated in negotiations or the performance of a contract.

Mr Kunal Vajani discussed key lessons from the decade-long litigation surrounding Vedanta and its implications for international arbitration.

He highlighted the importance of respecting the law of the arbitral seat and the finality of awards upheld by competent courts. He observed that Indian courts do not reopen the merits of an award during enforcement proceedings.

He also stressed that parties must assess limitation periods in the jurisdiction where enforcement is sought, ideally before the award is pronounced.

He further flagged the treatment of third-party funders in enforcement proceedings as an area requiring further judicial development, particularly in the context of extending the group-company doctrine.

Lam Ko Luen discussed a Malaysian case involving multiple agreements, including a project development agreement and separate mining contracts. The arbitration had involved claims relating to entities that were not signatories to the project development agreement, raising questions about whether claims arising under other contractual arrangements could be included in the award.

The discussion illustrated the importance of examining the scope of the arbitration agreement, the governing law and the legal basis on which a non-signatory is said to be bound. It also highlighted the potential difficulties that may arise when an award rendered in one jurisdiction is presented for enforcement in another.

The session brought together judicial and practitioner perspectives on the challenges of international arbitration, using the Vedanta proceedings to examine how national courts approach jurisdictional objections, setting-aside applications and the enforcement of awards across borders.