CASE NAME: Shri Colonizers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. thru Director and Anr. v/s Abha Gupta
CASE NUMBER: SPLA(L) No. 394 of 2025.
COURT: Allahabad High Court
DATE: 16 December 2025
QUORAM: Hon’ble Justice Rajan Roy, J.and Hon’ble Justice Rajeev Bharti, J.
FACTS
The conflict originated when a Special Appeal was filed in front of Allahabad High Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the commercial division of the High Court, in entertaining an application for enforcement of a domestic arbiter award rendered in the context of international commercial arbitration. The appellant, Shri Colonizers and Developers Pvt. Ltd. put forth the contention that the respondent application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was a clear violation of jurisdictional integrity and argued that the contention should have been filed before District Commercial Court and not before the Commercial Division of the High Court. The respondent had initially filed the application before the district commercial court, upon which, the non-maintainability was noted and subsequently the application was withdrawn and filed again before the Commercial Division of the High Court at Lucknow. The critical issue revolved on interpretation of jurisdictional provisions which govern enforcement of domestic awards arising out of international commercial arbitration where the seat of arbitration is within the territory of India.
ISSUES
- Whether a domestic arbitral award rendered in an international commercial arbitration can be enforced before the District Commercial Court or the Commercial Division of the High Court.
- Whether the definition of court contained in section 2 (1) (e) (ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to the Part I of the Act governing domestic awards in international commercial arbitration.
- Whether the amendment to Section 47 concerning foreign awards carries logical implications for the enforcement jurisdiction of domestic awards in international commercial arbitration.
- Whether an application for enforcement under Section 36 must be differentiated based on place-centric or party-centric characterization of international commercial arbitration.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which defines “Court” differently for domestic arbitration and international commercial arbitration.
- Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which prescribes the manner of enforcement of arbitral awards.
- Section 10 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which provides categorization as to the jurisdictional allocation between Commercial Courts and Commercial Division of high Courts.
- Section 2 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which establishes that Part I, which contains domestic arbitration rules, is applicable when the seat of arbitration is in India.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT:
The counsel appearing on behalf of appellant stated that Section 36 of the 1996 Act mandates execution in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 based on which provides the executionary jurisdiction to District Courts and thereby requiring the application to be filed before the District Commercial Court. The counsel went on to argue that a conscious decision by legislature to amend the Section 47 of the 1996 Act in its 2015 amendment through which specific addressing for an award suggest a logical inference that domestic awards pertaining to international commercial arbitration should be enforceable before District Commercial Courts. The appellant also submitted that arbitrary proceedings terminate upon rendering the award under Section 32 and necessitate fresh proceedings before the District Commercial Court for execution as a decree. Furthermore, the appellant contained that distinction should be drawn between place-centric and party-centric international commercial arbitration for jurisdictional purposes.
RESPONDENT:
The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that Section 2 (1) (e) (ii) of the 1996 Act explicitly defines “Court” for international commercial arbitration as High Court, leaving no scope for ambiguity for alternative forums to be entitled with jurisdiction. The respondent relied on Supreme Court precedents such as Paramjeet Singh Patheja versus ICDS Ltd. AIR 2007 SC 168 And Sundaram Finance Limited v Abdul Samad AIR 2018 SC 965, which established that domestic awards in international commercial arbitration must be enforced before the High Court. The respondent has contended that the definition of the word “Court” in Part I applies in the same manner to all the provisions of Part I, regardless of whether the awards are place-centric or party-centric.
ANALYSIS
The Court held that Section 36 does not enforce the forum, requiring reliance on Section 2 (1) (e) for determination of jurisdiction. In this judgment, clear distinctions have been drawn between Section 2 (1) (e) (i) which is applicable to domestic arbitration and Section 2 (1) (e) (ii), which is applicable to international commercial arbitration. The court emphasized that, Section 2 (1) (e) (ii) prescribes for the High Court to exercise original civil jurisdiction over dispute questions constitutes the “Court” and where such prescription is absent, a High Court with appellant and jurisdiction suffices. The judgment rejected the appellant’s argument, which observed that amendments to Section 47 which concern the foreign awards cannot retroactively define jurisdiction under Section 36. The bench held that part one and part two operate independently, with different distinct definitions of “Court”.
JUDGEMENT
The two-judge bench of the High Court upheld the judgment given by the learned Single Judge dated 9th October 2025 and affirmed that commercial division of Allahabad High Court possesses sound jurisdiction to entertain applications for enforcement of domestic arbitral awards rendered in international commercial arbitration where the seat of arbitration is within India in accordance with the 1996 and 2015 acts. Consequently, the Special Appeal was dismissed.
CONCLUSION
This judgement provides a significant clarification in Indian arbitration jurisprudence by establishing that domestic awards and international commercial arbitration fall under the purview of High Court’s jurisdiction irrespective of the place-centric or party-centric nature of the arbitration. This judgment strikes consistency with statutory definitions contained in Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and prevents any complications regarding jurisdiction. The judgment also helps in strengthening international commercial arbitration and its position by ensuring that institutional competence is maintained within the commercial division of High Courts.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: KRISHNA KOUSHIK
