In a detailed ruling delivered at Lucknow, the Allahabad High Court has clarified an important procedural question under arbitration law - which court has the authority to enforce a domestic arbitral award arising from an international commercial arbitration seated in India.
Dismissing a special appeal filed by a real estate company, the Division Bench held that such awards must be enforced before the High Court and not the district-level commercial court.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after an arbitral award was passed in favour of Abha Gupta against Shri Colonizers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. The arbitration was an international commercial arbitration because one of the parties met the statutory foreign element requirement, though the seat of arbitration was in India.
When the award-holder sought enforcement, an application was first filed before the District Commercial Court. That plea was withdrawn after objections on maintainability, and a fresh execution application was filed before the Commercial Division of the High Court at Lucknow.
A Single Judge rejected the developer’s objection and held the High Court to be the competent forum. Challenging this view, the developer filed a special appeal before the Division Bench.
Read also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court revives church’s tax exemption plea, sets aside rejection over 44-day audit delay
Key Issue Before the Court
The core question was narrow but significant:
If an arbitral award is domestic in nature but arises out of an international commercial arbitration seated in India, which court has jurisdiction to enforce it under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
The appellant argued that since the award was domestic, enforcement should lie before the District Commercial Court, just like other domestic arbitral awards.
Court’s Observations
The Bench carefully examined the scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It noted that Section 36 of the Arbitration Act explains how an award is enforced, but not where it is to be enforced.
Read also:- MP High Court Quashes SLSA SOP, Allows Legal Aid Defence Counsels to Continue Without Fresh Selection
To answer that, the court turned to the statutory definition of “court” under Section 2(1)(e). The judges observed that the law draws a clear distinction between:
- arbitrations other than international commercial arbitration, and
- international commercial arbitration.
“The definition itself makes it clear that in cases of international commercial arbitration, the ‘court’ means the High Court,” the Bench observed.
The judges rejected the argument that execution as a civil decree automatically shifts jurisdiction to the district court. They clarified that execution “in the manner of a decree” does not override the specific definition of jurisdiction provided in the arbitration law.
The court also dealt with the appellant’s reliance on amendments relating to foreign awards, stating that those provisions apply to a different part of the statute and cannot be used to dilute the clear language governing domestic awards in international commercial arbitration.
Read also:- Supreme Court to Deliver Verdict on Umar Khalid, Others' Bail Pleas in Delhi Riots 'Larger Conspiracy
Decision
Upholding the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench ruled that enforcement of a domestic arbitral award arising from an international commercial arbitration must be filed before the High Court.
Finding no legal error in the earlier order, the court dismissed the special appeal and affirmed that the Commercial Division of the High Court is the correct forum for such enforcement proceedings.
Case Title: Shri Colonizers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Abha Gupta
Case No.: Special Appeal No. 394 of 2025
Case Type: Arbitration – Enforcement of Award
Decision Date: 16 December 2025
