Execution of foreign arbitral awards may proceed against local assets without a separate money decree, Delhi HC says.

Delhi HC held that territorial jurisdiction for execution of a foreign arbitral award can be founded on executable assets within Delhi, including bank accounts and shareholding linked to a company with its registered office there; later closure of the accounts did not defeat jurisdiction already attached. It further noted that, once enforceability under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is established, a foreign award operates as a decree and may be executed without first obtaining a separate money decree. The court also found that Order XXI CPC did not bar attachment and sale of the judgment debtor's shares or other assets, as the cited provisions were enabling rather than prohibitory.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain execution/enforcement of a foreign arbitral award on the basis of bank accounts and shareholding assets situated in Delhi; (ii) whether a foreign award can be enforced as a decree and executed against the judgment debtor's assets without first obtaining a separate money decree; and (iii) whether the cited execution provisions under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure barred attachment and sale of the judgment debtor's shares and other assets.

Issue (i): whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain execution/enforcement of a foreign arbitral award on the basis of bank accounts and shareholding assets situated in Delhi

Analysis: Jurisdiction under the Explanation to Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 depends on the court that would have jurisdiction over the subject-matter if it were the subject of a suit. The execution petition pleaded that the judgment debtor had bank accounts in Delhi and held substantial shares in a company with its registered office in Delhi. The court held that assets existing in Delhi at the time of filing were sufficient to found territorial jurisdiction for execution, and that the later closure of bank accounts did not defeat jurisdiction already attached. The court also treated the shares as located at the company's registered office for purposes of execution.

Conclusion: Territorial jurisdiction existed in Delhi, and the objection to maintainability on that ground was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether a foreign award can be enforced as a decree and executed against the judgment debtor's assets without first obtaining a separate money decree

Analysis: The court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling that the scheme of the 1996 Act stamps a foreign award as a decree once enforceability is determined, so a separate money decree is not required before execution. The objection that enforcement must begin with an independent decree obtained from a court having in personam jurisdiction was held to be contrary to that settled position.

Conclusion: A foreign award was held executable as a decree without first obtaining a separate money decree.

Issue (iii): whether the cited execution provisions under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure barred attachment and sale of the judgment debtor's shares and other assets

Analysis: The court held that Order XXI Rule 30 permits execution of a money decree by attachment and sale of the judgment debtor's property, and the other cited rules did not prohibit the proposed execution. Rules dealing with examination of the debtor, attachment of property not in possession, delivery of shares, and transfer of shares were treated as enabling provisions and not as bars to execution. The shares were regarded as property amenable to attachment and sale, and the statutory scheme did not prevent execution against those assets.

Conclusion: The reliance on Order XXI Rules 30, 41, 43, 46, 64, 66, 76, 79 and 80 did not defeat execution, and the objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The execution petition was maintainable in Delhi because assets of the judgment debtor were shown within the court's territorial jurisdiction, and the preliminary objection to territorial jurisdiction failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For enforcement of a foreign award, territorial jurisdiction may be founded on the presence of executable assets within the court's jurisdiction, and a foreign award, once enforceable under the 1996 Act, is executable as a decree against such assets without requiring a separate money decree.

---