Section 48 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 48 lists the only grounds on which enforcement of a foreign award under Chapter I of Part II may be refused. Five grounds in sub-section (1) must be proved by the party resisting enforcement, two grounds in sub-section (2) can be found by the Court itself, and sub-section (3) lets the Court adjourn the decision where a set-aside application is pending abroad. This article reads the section as per the India Code consolidated text consulted.
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 of one of five grounds (incapacity or invalid agreement; no proper notice or inability to present the case; award beyond the submission; improper composition or procedure; award not yet binding, set aside or suspended). The Court may also refuse if it finds the subject-matter not arbitrable under Indian law or enforcement contrary to the public policy of India. Two Explanations narrow public policy. Sub-section (3) lets the Court adjourn and order suitable security.
Where section 48 sits
Section 48 is in Part II, Chapter I (New York Convention Awards). It follows the evidence provision in section 47; see our article on sections 46 and 47. The word "foreign award" is defined in section 44; see section 44. If the Court is satisfied that the award is enforceable under the Chapter, section 49 deems it a decree of that Court. For help with a live enforcement or resistance, our arbitration support team can review the award against these grounds.
Sub-section (1): grounds the resisting party must prove
"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—"
The words "only if" make the list closed, and the burden is placed on the party resisting: it must "furnish proof".
| Clause | Ground as printed (summary using the Act's words) |
|---|---|
| (a) | The parties to the agreement referred to in section 44 were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity; or the agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication, under the law of the country where the award was made |
| (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 |
| (c) | The award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission |
| (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, not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place |
| (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 |
The proviso to clause (c). "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." So an award that goes partly beyond the submission can still be enforced to the extent it stays within it.
Sub-section (2): grounds the Court may find
"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."
Here the words are "the Court finds", not "proof furnished". The text consulted does not say that the resisting party must raise these grounds. Note that "Court" is the High Court as the Explanation to section 47 describes it.
Explanation 1: when an award conflicts with public policy
The footnote shows Explanations 1 and 2 as substituted by Act 3 of 2016, section 22, with effect from 23-10-2015. Explanation 1 reads: "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."
The word "only" makes the three heads exhaustive on the text. Sections 75 and 81 are in Part III (conciliation). Our articles on section 75 and sections 80 and 81 explain them. The India Code text consulted prints Part III; the Mediation Act, 2023 provides for sections 61 to 81 to be replaced by two sections, its commencement is by notification and the date is not in the sources consulted, so check whether that change is in force before relying on the references to sections 75 and 81.
Explanation 2: the review on merits
"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." The same wording appears in the Explanations to sections 34(2) and 57(1); for section 34 see our post on challenge to an award under section 34.
Sub-section (3): adjournment and security
"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."
- The trigger is a pending application, abroad, to set aside or suspend the award.
- The Court "may" adjourn "if it considers it proper".
- The security is ordered "on the application of the party claiming enforcement". The section does not say what security is suitable or how much.
Section 48 beside Article V of the First Schedule
Article V of the Convention in the First Schedule contains matching grounds, and Article VI matches sub-section (3). The wording is close but not identical.
| Point | Section 48 | Article V / VI of the First Schedule |
|---|---|---|
| Burden under the first list | The party resisting "furnishes to the court proof" | The party "furnishes to the competent authority ... proof" |
| Proviso on separable decisions | Proviso to clause (c): that part "may be enforced" | Included in Article V(1)(c) as "provided that ... may be recognised and enforced" |
| Second list | "The Court finds": not arbitrable under "the law of India"; contrary to "the public policy of India" | "The competent authority ... finds": not arbitrable under "the law of that country"; contrary to "the public policy of that country" |
| Public policy Explanations | Explanations 1 and 2 | Not in the Convention text |
| Adjournment | Section 48(3) (Court may adjourn and order suitable security) | Article VI (authority may adjourn and order suitable security) |
See our article on the First Schedule. The article reconciles nothing beyond the printed words.
How this compares with section 34
Section 34(2) lists grounds on which a domestic award may be set aside, and uses the same Explanations 1 and 2. Section 34(2)(a) speaks of the applicant establishing "on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal" a ground, and sub-section (2A) adds patent illegality for awards other than in international commercial arbitrations. Section 48 has no such ground. The two sections are different provisions for different awards, and this article does not say how one affects the other. For Part I, see the section 34 post.
An example
An Indian distributor, resisting enforcement by Harbour Retail LLP of a foreign award, claims it was never properly told of the appointment of the arbitrator. Under section 48(1)(b), the distributor must furnish proof of that ground to the Court. If it also claims that the award is against Indian public policy, the Court may consider section 48(2)(b) read with Explanation 1: only the three heads (fraud or corruption or violation of section 75 or 81; fundamental policy of Indian law; most basic notions of morality or justice) count, and by Explanation 2 the fundamental policy test does not entail a review on the merits. If the distributor has applied abroad to set the award aside, section 48(3) lets the Court adjourn, and Harbour Retail may apply for the distributor to give suitable security.
Need help resisting or enforcing a foreign award?
The grounds are narrow and the burden of proof differs between sub-section (1) and sub-section (2). Our arbitration support service can map the award, the agreement and the record against section 48 and advise on the filing.
Key takeaways
- Enforcement may be refused "only if" the resisting party furnishes proof of one of the five grounds in sub-section (1).
- A separable part of an award within the submission may be enforced (proviso to clause (c)).
- The Court may also refuse on non-arbitrability under the law of India or public policy of India (sub-section (2)).
- Explanation 1 says an award conflicts with public policy "only if" one of three heads is met; Explanation 2 bars a review on the merits for the fundamental policy test.
- Sub-section (3) lets the Court adjourn and order suitable security; the footnote shows the Explanations as substituted by Act 3 of 2016, s. 22 (w.e.f. 23-10-2015).
Read next
- Sections 49 to 52: foreign award as decree, appeals and saving
- Section 57: conditions for enforcement of Geneva Convention awards
- Sections 46 and 47: binding effect and evidence
- Enforcement of arbitral awards: section 36 and cross-border enforcement
Disclaimer: Based on the India Code consolidated text of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, whose footnotes show amendments up to Act 3 of 2021 and a latest date of 12 October 2023, as consulted on 2 October 2026. Rules, regulations and notifications under the Act, later amendments and the commencement of the Mediation Act, 2023 should be checked. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.