Foreign award enforcement: prima facie jurisdiction and interim asset protection can be granted despite pending challenge periods and refusal objections.

Prima facie territorial jurisdiction was treated as available for enforcement of a foreign award where the awarded money was situate or recoverable from the judgment debtor, and the objection based on Section 42 was declined. The Court held that the mere availability of time to challenge the award under the UNCITRAL Model Law did not bar interim protection or execution-related directions, and that objections under Section 48 had to be established by the resisting party before enforcement could be refused. On that basis, the Court granted interim asset disclosure and restrained dissipation of the specified property pending further proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition for enforcement of the foreign award under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (ii) Whether the pendency of a challenge period under the UNCITRAL Model Law and the objections under Sections 42, 48 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 barred interim protection and execution-related directions. (iii) Whether interim asset disclosure and restraint orders could be granted at this stage.

Issue (i): Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition for enforcement of the foreign award under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The objection was founded on the place of execution of the agreements, the location of the respondents' office, and the situs of the underlying land. The Court accepted the petitioner's reliance on precedent to hold, at least prima facie, that a petition under Section 47 could be maintained where the money awarded was situate or recoverable from the judgment debtor. The objection based on Section 42 was also declined in light of the later Supreme Court decision relied upon before the Court.

Conclusion: Territorial jurisdiction was held to be available prima facie in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the pendency of a challenge period under the UNCITRAL Model Law and the objections under Sections 42, 48 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 barred interim protection and execution-related directions.

Analysis: The Court held that the mere availability of time to seek setting aside of the award did not by itself render the award incapable of enforcement for present purposes. It further held that objections under Section 48 were only grounds for refusal of enforcement to be established by the respondents, and until such grounds were shown, the award could be treated as capable of enforcement for the purpose of seeking interim protection.

Conclusion: The objections were not accepted as a bar to interim relief at that stage.

Issue (iii): Whether interim asset disclosure and restraint orders could be granted at this stage.

Analysis: On the basis of the award directing payment of substantial sums, the Court considered it appropriate to secure the enforcement process by requiring disclosure of assets and restraining dissipation of the subject property pending further proceedings.

Conclusion: The respondents were directed to file an affidavit of assets and were restrained from creating third party interests in the specified property.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner's enforcement effort was protected by interim directions, while the respondents' jurisdictional and enforceability objections were rejected at the prima facie stage and kept open for consideration under Section 48.

Ratio Decidendi: For enforcement of a foreign award, prima facie territorial jurisdiction and interim protection may be granted where the award is shown as capable of enforcement, and objections under Section 48 do not bar such relief unless the resisting party establishes a valid ground for refusal of enforcement.

---