Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Conditions for Enforcement of Foreign Awards
Section 48 sets out the limited grounds on which an Indian Court may refuse enforcement of a New York Convention foreign award. The provision is intentionally narrow and does not permit the Court to rehear the merits of the underlying dispute.
Updated for current law: September 7, 2026.
Section 48: Conditions for Enforcement of Foreign Awards
(1) Enforcement of a foreign award may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the court proof that -
(a) the parties to the agreement referred to in section 44 were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made; or
(b) the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or
(c) the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration:
Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration may be enforced; or
(d) the composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place; or
(e) the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made.
(2) Enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the Court finds that -
(a) the subject-matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of India; or
(b) the enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of India.
Explanation 1. For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India only if -
(i) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or section 81; or
(ii) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law; or
(iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.
Explanation 2. For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute.
(3) If an application for the setting aside or suspension of the award has been made to a competent authority referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1), the Court may, if it considers it proper, adjourn the decision on the enforcement of the award and may also, on the application of the party claiming enforcement of the award, order the other party to give suitable security.
Official statute: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - India Code PDF.
Grounds that may be raised by the party resisting enforcement
Section 48(1) places the burden on the party against whom the award is invoked. That party must furnish proof of one or more of the specified defects. The statutory grounds are exhaustive and include incapacity or invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice or inability to present the case, excess of jurisdiction, irregular composition or procedure, and the award not yet being binding or having been set aside or suspended at the seat.
These are not grounds for a general reconsideration of the dispute. The Court examines whether one of the specific statutory defects has been established.
Grounds the Court may consider under Section 48(2)
Section 48(2) separately permits refusal where the subject matter is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Indian law, or where enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of India.
These grounds reflect the enforcing State's own legal limits on arbitrability and the narrow public-policy safeguard preserved by the New York Convention framework.
Public policy of India under Section 48
The public-policy ground is expressly confined by Explanation 1. Enforcement may be refused on this basis only where the making of the award was affected by fraud or corruption or violated Sections 75 or 81, where the award contravenes the fundamental policy of Indian law, or where it conflicts with the most basic notions of morality or justice.
The 2015 amendment narrowed and clarified the public-policy inquiry for foreign awards and reinforced the distinction between enforcement review under Part II and a merits challenge to the award.
Severability where part of the award exceeds the submission
Section 48(1)(c) contains an important proviso. If decisions on matters that were properly submitted to arbitration can be separated from decisions that were not, the enforceable part of the award may still be recognized and enforced.
This prevents an otherwise enforceable portion of a foreign award from automatically failing merely because another separable portion travels beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration.
Adjournment and security under Section 48(3)
Where an application to set aside or suspend the award is pending before the competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made, the Indian Court may adjourn the enforcement decision if it considers that course proper.
If enforcement is adjourned, the Court may also require the resisting party to furnish suitable security on the application of the party seeking enforcement.
Supreme Court approach to Section 48
In Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL, the Supreme Court stressed the restrictive nature of Section 48 review and the legislative policy favouring prompt recognition and enforcement of Convention awards. Later Supreme Court decisions have continued to apply the same narrow approach.
Official Supreme Court resources: Supreme Court of India.
How Section 48 fits with Sections 47 and 49
- Section 47 specifies the evidence and documents required for enforcement.
- Section 48 contains the limited grounds on which enforcement may be refused.
- Section 49 provides that once the Court is satisfied that the award is enforceable, the foreign award is deemed to be a decree of that Court.
Section 48 in simple terms
A foreign award is not open to a second merits hearing in India. Enforcement can be refused only on the specific grounds listed in Section 48, such as invalidity of the arbitration agreement, denial of proper notice or opportunity to present the case, excess of jurisdiction, procedural irregularity, non-binding or suspended status, non-arbitrability, or the narrow public-policy grounds recognized by Indian law.