HC Is Proper Forum To Enforce Domestic Award From International Commercial Arbitration Seated In India: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court, clarifying the forum for execution of arbitral awards, has recently ruled that a domestic arbitral award rendered out of an international commercial arbitration with its seat in India, is enforceable by the High Court itself under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

A Division Bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Rajeev Bharti, on December 16th, 2025, rejected a special appeal, stating that "the High Court is the 'Court' for filing an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for enforcement of a domestic award pertaining to an international commercial arbitration."

The dispute arose out of execution proceedings initiated by Abha Gupta in order to enforce an arbitral award against Shri Colonizers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. The award, though a domestic award, was rendered in an international commercial arbitration with its seat in India. Abha Gupta, the respondent, filed the application before the Allahabad High Court's Commercial Division after withdrawing it from the District Commercial Court.

A Single Judge of the High Court had allowed the petition, affirming the maintainability of the execution application under Section 36 in a decision dated October 9, 2025. Aggrieved, the award-debtor, challenged the forum of enforcement through a special appeal.

Shri Colonizers and Developers Ltd., argued that since Section 36 mandates enforcement of an arbitral award “in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court”, execution must lie before the District Commercial Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Relying on Section 10 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Supreme Court judgment in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Samad, they contended that upon rendering the award, the arbitral proceedings get terminated and hence, execution must comply with the ordinary civil court hierarchy.They further contended that the legislative intent to enforce such awards of international commercial arbitration at the district court was clear by the amendment that inserted an explanation to Section 47 of the Act for foreign awards.

On the other hand, the Abhay Gupta argued that the High Court has a clear jurisdiction when Section 36 and Section 2(1)(e)(ii) of the Arbitration Act are read conjointly. It was contended that the Act clearly distinguishes between domestic arbitration and foreign commercial arbitration, and that, for the latter, the High Court alone is the "Court" under Part I of the Act, regardless of whether it had original civil jurisdiction.

The Allahabad High Court Bench at Lucknow, noted that Section 36 must not be interpreted independently, but in conjunction with the legislative definition of "Court" under Section 2(1)(e)(ii), emphasizing that arbitrations held in India, including international commercial arbitrations, are subject to Part I of the Arbitration Act.

Rejecting the appellant's submission, the Court observed: “Merely because it has to be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court cannot lead us to conclude that such enforcement is to be done through the Commercial Court at the District level.”

The Court explained that the amendment to Section 47 in Part II, which deals specifically with foreign awards, cannot be used to infer legislative intent for domestic awards, and that Section 2(1)(e)(ii) applies uniformly to all international commercial arbitrations covered by Part I.

It further mentioned that Section 10(1) of the Commercial Courts Act supports this view by requiring that a High Court's Commercial Division hear all applications resulting from international commercial arbitration.

Finding no merit in the appeal, the Division Bench rejected it and upheld the Single Judge's order, holding that the High Court is the competent forum for enforcement of such awards.

Case Title: Shri Colonizers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. through Director & Anr. v. Abha Gupta

Case No.: Special Appeal No. 394 of 2025

Coram: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Rajeev Bharti

Date of Decision: December 16, 2025

Counsel for Appellants: Rajeev Sharan, Amal Rastogi, Devesh Bahadur Singh

Counsel for Respondent: Anurag Tyagi

Click Here To Read/Download Order