Territorial jurisdiction must be decided first in foreign award enforcement, while interim restraint continues pending that determination.

In enforcement of a foreign award, territorial jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be decided before execution-stage requirements are triggered. The affidavit in Form 16A of Appendix E to the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as relevant only at the later Section 48 stage, if the award is found enforceable. A restraint against creating third-party rights or parting with possession was treated as a protective measure and was allowed to continue until the High Court resolves the jurisdictional question.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court must first decide territorial jurisdiction to enforce the foreign award before calling for the affidavit in Form 16A; (ii) whether the restraint order against creating third-party rights or parting with possession should continue pending the High Court's decision.

Issue (i): whether the High Court must first decide territorial jurisdiction to enforce the foreign award before calling for the affidavit in Form 16A.

Analysis: The stage of enforcing a foreign award under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is distinct from the stage under Section 48 when execution-related steps arise. The affidavit in Form 16A of Appendix E of the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as relevant only at the later execution stage. The first question, therefore, was whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to enforce the award at all.

Conclusion: The High Court must decide territorial jurisdiction first, and the filing of Form 16A is deferred until the stage under Section 48, if the award is held enforceable.

Issue (ii): whether the restraint order against creating third-party rights or parting with possession should continue pending the High Court's decision.

Analysis: The restraint operated as a protective measure during the pendency of the jurisdictional determination and was not disturbed by the clarification regarding the sequence of proceedings.

Conclusion: The restraint order was affirmed and was directed to continue until the High Court decides the matter.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of with clarification that jurisdiction under Section 47 must be decided first, while the protective restraint remained in force pending that decision.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for enforcement of a foreign award, territorial jurisdiction must be determined before execution-stage requirements are invoked, and interim protective restraints may continue until that jurisdictional question is resolved.

---