Foreign money award enforcement depends on attachable assets where the award is to be executed, not the arbitration seat.

For enforcement of a foreign money award, territorial jurisdiction depends on where the award debtor's attachable assets are located, because the relevant inquiry is the subject matter of the award, not the subject matter of the arbitration. The expression "Court" in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is context-specific: jurisdiction for a Part I challenge turns on the subject matter of the arbitration, while enforcement of a foreign award turns on the subject matter of the award. Objections under Section 48, including public policy, may be considered in the enforcement proceedings, and a separate Section 34 challenge does not require parallel adjudication in another court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the execution application for enforcement of a foreign money award on the basis that the respondent's bank account was situated within its jurisdiction, and whether the challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the enforcement under Section 48 could be dealt with by one court.

Analysis: The expression "Court" in Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and in the Explanation to Section 47 of the Act is context-specific. For a challenge under Part I, jurisdiction turns on the subject matter of the arbitration; for enforcement of a foreign award, jurisdiction turns on the subject matter of the award. In the case of a money award, the subject matter of the award is money, and enforcement may be sought where the judgment debtor has attachable assets. The scheme of execution under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 also proceeds on the basis that execution is effected through the court competent to act upon property within its territorial limits. The earlier decisions relied on support the principle that a foreign money award may be enforced where the debtor's assets are found. The Court further held that the objections under Section 48, including public policy, can be considered in the enforcement proceedings, and that a separate challenge under Section 34 need not compel parallel adjudication in another court.

Conclusion: The High Court held that it had territorial jurisdiction as the Executing Court because the respondent's bank account within its limits constituted the subject matter of the award. The impugned order was set aside and the execution application was directed to proceed before that Court, along with the Section 34 challenge if pursued there.

Ratio Decidendi: For enforcement of a foreign money award, territorial jurisdiction lies with the court where the award debtor's attachable assets are situated, because the relevant inquiry under the Act is the subject matter of the award, not the subject matter of the arbitration.

---