Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has clarified that a domestic arbitral award arising out of an international commercial arbitration seated in India must be enforced before the Commercial Division of the High Court and not before the District Commercial Court. The ruling, delivered on December 16, 2025, settles an important jurisdictional question concerning the enforcement mechanism under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The judgment was pronounced by a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Rajeev Bharti while dismissing a Special Appeal challenging an order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Commercial Division. The controversy before the Court centred on the forum competent to entertain an execution application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in respect of a domestic award rendered in an international commercial arbitration where the seat of arbitration is in India.
The appellants contended that since a domestic arbitral award is executable as a decree of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the execution petition ought to be filed before the District Commercial Court. It was further argued that the amendment to Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—specifically providing that foreign awards are to be enforced through the High Court—implied that all other awards, including domestic awards, fall within the jurisdiction of the District Commercial Courts.
Rejecting this submission, the High Court emphasised that the jurisdictional issue cannot be decided on the basis of implication from Section 47, but must be resolved by a conjoint reading of the relevant provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Bench held that Section 2(1)(e)(ii) of the Act, which defines the term “Court” in cases of international commercial arbitration, is determinative of the issue.
The Court observed that both Section 2(1)(e)(ii) and Section 36 form part of Part I of the Act and must therefore be read together. The Bench noted that Section 36, which governs the enforcement of arbitral awards, does not itself specify the forum competent to execute the award. Consequently, recourse must be taken to the definition of “Court” under Section 2(1)(e).
Analysing Section 2(1)(e)(ii), the Court explained that in cases of international commercial arbitration, where the High Court does not exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction over the subject matter of the arbitration, the expression “Court” refers to the High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of courts subordinate to it. The Bench categorically held that the second limb of Section 2(1)(e)(ii) “clinches the issue” and leaves no scope for the District Commercial Court to assume jurisdiction in such matters.
The High Court also relied upon Section 10(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates that all applications or appeals arising out of international commercial arbitration shall be heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division of the High Court where such a division has been constituted. The Court held that this provision is entirely consistent with the scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and reinforces the conclusion that enforcement proceedings in such cases must lie before the Commercial Division of the High Court.
The Division Bench concluded that permitting execution proceedings before District Commercial Courts in matters of international commercial arbitration would defeat the legislative intent of vesting such disputes in specialised commercial divisions of High Courts. Upholding the order of the Single Judge, the Court dismissed the Special Appeal and affirmed that the application for enforcement of the arbitral award under Section 36 of the Act was maintainable only before the Commercial Division of the High Court.
Case Details:
Case Title: Shri Colonizers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. through Director and Another v. Abha Gupta
Case Number: Special Appeal No. 394 of 2025
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Date of Judgment: 16 December 2025
Bench: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Rajeev Bharti
Counsel for the Appellants: Shri Pritish Kumar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Rajeev Sharan, Shri Amal Rastogi, Shri Devesh Bahadur Singh, and Shri Utkarsh Srivastava, Advocates
Counsel for the Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate, along with Shri Anurag Tyagi, Advocate
!["No Loudspeakers For Azan, No Fundamental Right To Create Noise," Says Allahabad HC To Two Mosques [Read Judgment]](/secure/uploads/2020/01/lj_4995_Allahabad_HC_AZAN.jpg)
