Foreign award enforcement limitation runs only when the award becomes enforceable, not while pre-amendment challenge proceedings keep it in abeyance.

A foreign award under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is enforceable and executable in the same proceeding and, once held enforceable, operates as a decree. The Court held that pending pre-amendment Section 34 challenge proceedings, including interim and stay orders, effectively kept enforceability in abeyance, so limitation for enforcement did not run during that period. It further held that the condonation of delay in the Section 34 matter related back to the filing date, and the award became enforceable only when the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and held the Section 34 petition not maintainable. On that basis, the enforcement petition was within limitation and maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition for enforcement and execution of the foreign award was barred by limitation, and whether the prior Section 34 proceedings and the interim/stay orders prevented the limitation period from running.

Analysis: The petition sought enforcement and execution of foreign awards under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that the statutory scheme under Sections 47 to 49 permits enforcement and execution in the same proceeding, and that a foreign award is to be regarded as a decree once it is held enforceable. Relying on the settled position that filing and pendency of a Section 34 challenge operated as an implied prohibition on enforcement under the pre-amendment regime, the Court held that the award was not practically available for enforcement while the challenge remained pending. The Court also held that the order condoning delay in the Section 34 proceedings related back to the date of filing, and that the award became enforceable only when the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and held the Section 34 petition to be not maintainable. On that basis, even applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the petition filed thereafter was within time. The Court further held that the broader statutory object of avoiding multiplicity and enabling effective enforcement of foreign awards supported this construction.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected, and the petition was held to be within limitation and maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign award, once held enforceable, is to be regarded as a decree and may be enforced and executed in the same proceeding, and where enforceability is effectively held in abeyance by pending pre-amendment challenge proceedings, limitation for enforcement runs only from the date the award becomes available for enforcement.

---