38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Limitation Period for Filing Petition for Enforcement of Foreign Award Would be Governed by Article 137 of Limitation Act: SC [READ JUDGMENT]

By Arundhuti Deshmukh      18 September, 2020 06:39 PM      0 Comments
Limitation Period for Filing Petition for Enforcement of Foreign Award Would be Governed by Article 137 of Limitation Act: SC [READ JUDGMENT]

The Bombay High Court while deciding a preliminary objection to an application filed for enforcement of a foreign award under Section 47, 48, and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), held that an application for enforcement of a foreign award can be filed within a period of 12 years from the date when such an award becomes enforceable.

Imax Corporation, the award holder, filed an application before the Court seeking enforcement of three foreign awards issued by the International Chamber of Commerce. The application, in addition to the enforcement, also asked for the simultaneous execution of the awards. The award debtors raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that the petition is time-barred considering the provisions of Article 137 under the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act). It was argued that given the scheme of Sections 46, 47, 48, and 49 of the Act, unless a foreign award is held to be enforceable by a Court, such an award would not be a decree available for execution and accordingly the application for enforcement should be governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act which stipulates a 3 year limit for filing, from the date of the award.

The Court, while referring to various Supreme Court judgments, held that enforcement and execution of a foreign award form part of the same proceedings under Sections 47, 48, and 49 of the Act. The Court further held that in case the argument of inapplicability of Article 136 of the Limitation Act raised by the objectors was accepted, it would be contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd.2, apart from significantly damaging the interests of the award holders and being contrary to the objective of efficacious enforcement of foreign awards under the Act.

Briefly encapsulated, the Supreme Court had, in Fuerst Day Lawson (supra), rejected the contention that the petition for enforcement of the award ought to have been filed within three years therefrom. The Supreme Court held that when a foreign award is already stamped as a decree, the award holder can apply for enforcement of the foreign award within a period of 12 years from the date of the award, similar to a usual decree-holder executing a decree arising out of a civil or commercial suit.

Accordingly, the award debtors' objections on the bar of limitation were rejected.

This decision of the Bombay High Court is a welcome step towards the recognition and speedy enforcement of foreign awards under the Act because it fosters positive sentiment in the global business community for the ease of pursuing offshore arbitrations against Indian entities based out of India.

Notably, the judgment has been passed by a Single Judge of the Court and it is possible that the decision may now be appealed before the Division Bench of the Court.

 

[READ JUDGMENT]



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

ai-judges-the-future-of-algorithmic-decision-making-in-courts
Trending Vantage Points
“AI Judges” The Future of Algorithmic Decision-Making in Courts

Can algorithms deliver justice? This article explores AI judges, constitutional challenges, ethical risks, global models, and India’s cautious path forward.

12 January, 2026 07:07 PM

TOP STORIES

borrowers-cannot-invoke-writ-jurisdiction-to-compel-banks-to-extend-one-time-settlement-benefits-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Borrowers Cannot Invoke Writ Jurisdiction to Compel Banks to Extend One-Time Settlement Benefits: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court holds borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks to grant One-Time Settlement benefits, as OTS is not a legal right.

07 January, 2026 09:22 PM
leela-palace-udaipur-ordered-to-pay-10-lakh-after-housekeeping-staff-enters-occupied-room-without-consent
Trending Business
Leela Palace Udaipur Ordered to Pay ₹10 Lakh After Housekeeping Staff Enters Occupied Room Without Consent [Read Order]

Chennai Consumer Commission orders Leela Palace Udaipur to pay ₹10 lakh and refund room tariff for breach of guest privacy by housekeeping staff.

07 January, 2026 09:43 PM
sc-strikes-down-bihars-midway-change-in-recruitment-rules-for-assistant-engineers
Trending Judiciary
SC Strikes Down Bihar’s Midway Change in Recruitment Rules for Assistant Engineers [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules recruitment criteria cannot be changed midway, strikes down Bihar’s retrospective amendment granting weightage to contractual engineers.

07 January, 2026 10:03 PM
only-light-and-not-any-fight-madras-hc-upholds-single-judges-order-allowing-lighting-of-lamps-on-deepathoon
Trending Judiciary
Only Light And Not Any Fight: Madras HC Upholds Single Judge’s Order Allowing Lighting Of Lamps On Deepathoon [Read Judgment]

Madras High Court upholds order allowing lighting of Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon, rejecting public order objections and dismissing 20 appeals.

07 January, 2026 10:57 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email