SERIES – Jurisdiction of Civil and Commercial Courts under Indian Arbitration Law
One of the most persistent doctrinal problems in Indian arbitration law concerned execution jurisdiction. Specifically, courts grappled with whether enforcement must be confined to the court exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration, or whether execution could be initiated before any court where the award-debtor’s assets were located.
Supervisory jurisdiction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is exercised at defined stages. Courts intervene to grant interim relief, appoint arbitrators, or examine the validity of awards under Section 34. Execution jurisdiction, by contrast, serves a fundamentally different purpose. It is concerned not with reviewing the award, but with enforcing rights that have already crystallised.
Despite this distinction, Indian courts frequently treated execution as a continuation of arbitral proceedings. This approach led to the application of seat-centric principles, particularly those derived from Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, to execution proceedings. The practical consequence was that award-holders were often required to approach the supervisory court even when the award-debtor’s assets were situated elsewhere.
This conflation was widely criticised by scholars. O.P. Malhotra noted that such an approach enabled award-debtors to raise jurisdictional objections at the enforcement stage, thereby frustrating recovery. Avtar Singh criticised the seat-centric enforcement model as being fundamentally incompatible with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs execution in India.
Order XXI of the CPC adopts a pragmatic and asset-oriented approach. It allows execution wherever the judgment-debtor resides, carries on business, or holds attachable property. Since an arbitral award is treated as a deemed decree solely for enforcement purposes, importing arbitration-specific jurisdictional restrictions into execution was doctrinally indefensible.
Judicial clarity was eventually achieved when the issue reached the Supreme Court of India in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Samad. The Court held that arbitral proceedings conclude with the making of the award and that Section 42 has no application to execution. Execution, the Court clarified, is governed by the CPC, and an award-holder may initiate enforcement directly in any competent court where assets are located, without seeking a transfer from the supervisory court.
This ruling dismantled the seat-centric enforcement model and replaced it with an asset-centric framework aligned with commercial reality. Enforcement was recognised as a practical exercise driven by recoverability rather than procedural history. The judgment marked a decisive shift in Indian arbitration jurisprudence and significantly curtailed jurisdictional obstruction at the execution stage.
Authored by,
Mantri Lakshmi Sanjana (Intern, Alliance University, Bangalore)
With guidance from Ananthakesavan V, Advocate – IPR & Litigation
RVR Associates, IPR Attorneys and Advocates