The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has held that once a foreign arbitral award is declared enforceable under Section 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it becomes a deemed decree of the High Court and can be executed by the same Court, even though the High Court does not exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
Justice Vinay Saraf was dealing with a petition seeking enforcement of a foreign award dated August 26, 2022, passed by sole arbitrator J. Hawkins in GAFTA Arbitration.
The Court had earlier, on May 8, 2026, rejected the objections raised by Shri Mittal Agritech Pvt. Ltd. and held the foreign award enforceable as a decree of the High Court. The present proceedings concerned the manner of execution of the award.
The respondent argued that, since the Madhya Pradesh High Court does not have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the deemed decree should be transferred to the competent District or Commercial Court for execution under Sections 38 and 39 of the CPC. Senior Advocate Veer Kumar Jain also submitted that the High Court lacked the necessary execution machinery to enforce the decree.
Opposing the objection, Advocate Shivansh Soni, appearing for the award-holder, submitted that the Arbitration Act does not require separate proceedings for enforcement and execution of a foreign award. Relying on Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd (2001) 6 SCC 356., LMJ International Ltd. v. Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd (2019) 5 SCC 302. and Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd. (2020) 10 SCC 1, he argued that the Court which determines the enforceability of the foreign award can itself proceed with its execution.
The Court accepted the award-holder’s contention and reiterated that Sections 47 to 49 of the Arbitration Act contemplate enforcement and execution as part of the same proceeding. Once the Court determines that the foreign award is enforceable, there is no requirement to initiate separate proceedings to convert it into a decree or have another Court execute it.
Relying particularly on the Supreme Court’s decision in Fuerst Day Lawson, (2001) 6 SCC 356, the High Court held that the Court determining enforceability under Section 47 is the competent Court, and once the award becomes a deemed decree under Section 49, the same High Court can execute it as its decree.
The Court rejected the respondent’s objection that the absence of ordinary original civil jurisdiction prevented it from executing the award. It clarified that if any practical difficulty arises during execution, the decree may subsequently be transferred to a competent Court under Section 39 CPC. However, there was no justification at this stage for transferring the decree merely because the High Court does not ordinarily exercise original civil jurisdiction.
The High Court accordingly directed its office to register the matter as a Miscellaneous Civil Case for execution under Order XXI CPC and place it before the appropriate roster Bench for further proceedings. The Arbitration Case was closed with these directions.
