Territorial jurisdiction for foreign award enforcement depends on where attachable assets are located, while pending challenge proceedings do not automatically bar enforcement.

For enforcement of a foreign money award, territorial jurisdiction turns on the location of attachable assets or money of the judgment debtor, not on where the arbitration itself was seated or conducted. The Delhi High Court noted that the presence of an administrative office, alleged bank accounts and other movables in Delhi, together with no categorical denial of those assets, prima facie supported maintainability. It also stated that pending challenge-related proceedings in Rajasthan did not, by themselves, bar enforcement proceedings in Delhi. Final determination of territorial jurisdiction was deferred until the judgment debtor disclosed its assets.

---

---

Issues: Maintainability of the enforcement petitions before the Delhi High Court on the basis of the location of the judgment debtor's assets and the subject matter of the foreign award; effect of pending proceedings in the Rajasthan High Court on the maintainability of the enforcement petitions.

Analysis: For enforcement of a foreign money award, the relevant consideration is the subject matter of the award and not the subject matter of the arbitration. The court relied on the distinction drawn in authorities construing the Explanation to Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the principles governing execution under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, noting that enforcement lies where attachable assets or money of the judgment debtor are located. The court also noted that the existence of an administrative office, alleged bank accounts and other movables within Delhi, coupled with the absence of a categorical denial on the bank accounts and movables, prima facie supported territorial jurisdiction. The pendency of challenge-related proceedings in Rajasthan did not, by itself, bar enforcement proceedings in Delhi.

Conclusion: The petitions were held to be prima facie maintainable in Delhi, but final determination of territorial jurisdiction was deferred pending disclosure of the judgment debtor's assets.

---