Foreign arbitral award enforcement in India does not require prior US court confirmation under the New York Convention framework.

A foreign arbitral award could be enforced in India without first obtaining a separate confirmation decree from a United States court, because the post-New York Convention framework rejects any double exequatur requirement. The consent order stated that the award was final and binding, and the objecting party had not taken the steps contemplated to challenge enforcement in the foreign jurisdiction. The objection that the award was not binding was therefore untenable, and enforcement in India was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether a foreign arbitral award required prior confirmation by a United States court before it could be enforced in India, and whether the award was not binding so as to attract refusal of enforcement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The consent order recorded that the arbitral award would be final and binding on the parties, and the objecting party had not taken the steps contemplated for disputing enforcement in the foreign jurisdiction. The requirement of obtaining a separate confirmation decree before seeking enforcement in India was rejected as inconsistent with the post-New York Convention framework and the abolition of the double exequatur requirement. In that setting, the award was treated as binding for enforcement purposes, and the objection based on absence of confirmation was found untenable.

Conclusion: The foreign award was enforceable in India without prior confirmation by a United States court, and the objection to execution failed.

---