Enforcement Court U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act Can Refuse To Enforce Foreign Award But Cannot Set It Aside: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court ruled that an enforcement court under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act can refuse to enforce a foreign award but cannot set it aside. The case involved a petition by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) seeking enforcement of a foreign award against Spring Travels Pvt. Ltd. (STPL). The arbitration was conducted under the ICC International Court of Arbitration, with the seat in Singapore. The court, led by Justice Jasmeet Singh, held that the power to set aside a foreign award lies with the courts at the seat of arbitration, which have primary jurisdiction. The enforcement court, having secondary jurisdiction, can only refuse enforcement if grounds under Section 48 are met. This ruling clarifies the limited role of enforcement courts in dealing with foreign awards and emphasizes the distinction between refusing enforcement and setting aside an award, reinforcing the principle of primary jurisdiction of the seat courts.