High Courts Hold the Hammer: Allahabad HC Affirms Jurisdiction in Enforcement of Domestic Awards in International Commercial Arbitrations

“Commercial Division of High Court is the Right Forum”— In a significant ruling with wide implications for arbitration enforcement in India, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) upheld the maintainability of an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for enforcement of a domestic award arising from an international commercial arbitration before the Commercial Division of the High Court.

The Court dismissed Special Appeal filed by Shri Colonizers and Developers Pvt. Ltd., challenging the Single Judge’s refusal to transfer the enforcement proceedings to a District Commercial Court.

“The High Court, even without original civil jurisdiction, is the proper forum under Section 2(1)(e)(ii) of the Arbitration Act to enforce such awards,” held Justices Rajan Roy and Rajeev Bharti in a detailed 46-paragraph judgment, reaffirming that Part I of the Arbitration Act governs such proceedings, and jurisdiction is clearly outlined in statutory definitions.

“Not All Roads Lead to District Court”—Court Draws Firm Line on Execution Jurisdiction

At the heart of the dispute was the appellants’ contention that since Section 36 mandates that awards be enforced “as if they were decrees of a court” under the CPC, and because Allahabad High Court lacks original civil jurisdiction, such execution must lie with the District Commercial Court.

The Bench flatly rejected this, clarifying: “Section 36 must be read with Section 2(1)(e)(ii) of the Arbitration Act, which defines the competent ‘Court’ for international commercial arbitrations seated in India. It includes High Courts that exercise appellate jurisdiction over subordinate courts—even if they lack original civil jurisdiction.”

The Court added: “The enforcement of arbitral awards, even if domestic but arising out of international commercial arbitration seated in India, clearly falls within the Commercial Division of the High Court.”

“Commercial Courts Act Doesn’t Alter the Equation”—Section 10 Strengthens High Court’s Role

The appellants had attempted to draw support from Section 10 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the Explanation to Section 47 of the Arbitration Act—arguing that foreign awards go to High Courts, while domestic awards in international arbitrations must go to District Commercial Courts.

But the Bench saw no merit in this reasoning: “Part I and Part II of the Arbitration Act operate in distinct spheres. Section 2(1)(e)(ii), which governs domestic awards under Part I, remains untouched by the later amendment to Section 47 in Part II. The amendment cannot be used to infer a shift in jurisdiction for domestic awards.”

The Court found Section 10(1) of the Commercial Courts Act particularly telling: “In matters of international commercial arbitration, all applications or appeals shall be heard by the Commercial Division of the High Court. The legislative intent is unambiguous.”

“Seat in India, One Foreign Party—That’s Enough for ICCA”

The case involved a domestic award stemming from an international commercial arbitration (ICCA) seated in India—making it squarely a Part I case.

The Court reaffirmed the settled position, citing BALCO (2012) and PASL Wind Solutions (2021): “When the arbitration is seated in India, and at least one party qualifies under Section 2(1)(f), it is an ICCA. The fact that the award is domestic does not change the jurisdictional scheme under Part I.”

“Special Appeal Maintainable, But Not Meritorious”

On a procedural note, the Court also addressed the maintainability of the special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. While holding the appeal technically maintainable, the Court made it clear that the arguments had no force on merits:

“This is not a case of revisional, appellate, or supervisory jurisdiction. The Single Judge was exercising original jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act read with the Arbitration Act. The special appeal is maintainable—but is dismissed on merits.”

“Reading Sections in Isolation is Misleading”—Court Calls for Harmonious Construction

The Court cautioned against interpreting statutory provisions in silos:

“Merely because execution of decrees ordinarily lies with district courts does not mean that execution of arbitral awards must also lie there. Section 36 must be harmoniously read with Section 2(1)(e)(ii), which explicitly covers this scenario.”

And further: “The phrase ‘as if it were a decree’ in Section 36 describes the mode of enforcement, not the forum for enforcement.”

High Court's Commercial Division is the Correct Court for Enforcement of Domestic Awards in ICCA

This ruling cements a key jurisdictional principle: If a domestic arbitral award arises from an international commercial arbitration seated in India, the Commercial Division of the High Court—not the District Commercial Court—is the correct forum for enforcement under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Allahabad High Court has now joined other High Courts, including Karnataka, Gujarat, and Delhi, in affirming this view.

➤ The appeal by Shri Colonizers and Developers was dismissed.

➤ The Commercial Division’s jurisdiction stands upheld.

➤ Arbitration law practitioners now have judicial clarity on forum selection for such enforcement cases.

Date of Decision: December 16, 2025