Foreign award enforcement turns on the relief granted; a quantified payment award supports territorial jurisdiction where debtor assets exist.

For enforcement of a foreign award, territorial jurisdiction turns on the relief granted by the award, not on the underlying contract dispute. The Court treated the partial award as a money award because it directed payment of quantified sums with a consequential obligation to return title documents. On that basis, jurisdiction depended on the location of the judgment debtor's attachable assets, and the petitioner's uncontroverted assertions that the respondent had assets, offices, and bank accounts in Delhi were sufficient. Pending insolvency proceedings against another respondent did not affect the jurisdictional analysis at that stage because enforcement was not being pursued against that respondent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and enforce the foreign award, and whether the award was a money award or an award for specific performance.

Analysis: The distinction between the jurisdictional phrase used for arbitration proceedings and the phrase governing enforcement of a foreign award was applied. For enforcement under the relevant provision, the Court held that the focus is on the relief granted by the award, not the underlying contract dispute. On examining the operative directions of the partial award, the Court found that the award directed payment of quantified sums with a consequential obligation to return title documents, and therefore the award was in substance a money award. Once so characterized, territorial jurisdiction depended on the location of the judgment debtor's assets. The petitioner had averred that the respondent had assets, offices, and bank accounts within Delhi, and those assertions were not effectively denied. The pending insolvency proceedings against the other respondent did not affect the jurisdictional ruling at this stage because the petitioner was not pursuing enforcement against that respondent pending moratorium.

Conclusion: The Court held that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition and that the enforcement award was to be treated as a money award. The jurisdictional objection was rejected in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: For enforcement of a foreign award, the relevant inquiry is the relief finally granted by the award, and where that relief is monetary, territorial jurisdiction lies where the judgment debtor's attachable assets are located.

---