The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are crucial in international commercial arbitration. India, being a signatory to the New York Convention (1958) and the Geneva Convention (1927), has a well-established legal framework for the enforcement of foreign awards. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter "the Act") governs the enforcement of both domestic and foreign arbitral awards in India. This article delves into the provisions related to the execution of foreign arbitral awards in India and discusses significant landmark judgments that have shaped the legal landscape.

Legal Framework for Enforcement of Foreign Awards in India

1. Relevant Provisions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: The Act, particularly under Part II, deals with the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Part II is divided into two chapters:
   • Chapter I: Pertains to the enforcement of New York Convention awards.
   • Chapter II: Deals with the enforcement of Geneva Convention awards.
   For a foreign award to be enforceable in India under the New York Convention, the following conditions must be met:
   • The award must be from a country that is a signatory to the New York Convention.
   • The award must be made in a territory that has been notified as a reciprocating territory by the Central Government of India.
2. Procedure for Enforcement of Foreign Awards: The procedure for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is akin to the execution of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The party seeking enforcement must apply to the competent court, and the award must pass the tests laid down under Section 48 of the Act.

The grounds for refusal to enforce a foreign award are limited and include:

• Incapacity of parties.
• Invalid arbitration agreement.
• Lack of proper notice or inability to present the case.
• Award deals with matters beyond the scope of arbitration.
• Improper composition of the arbitral tribunal or procedure.
• Award not yet binding, or set aside or suspended.
• The subject matter of the dispute is not arbitrable under Indian law.
• Enforcement is contrary to public policy in India.
• The interpretation of "public policy" has been a significant ground for contesting the enforcement of foreign awards in India.

Landmark Judgments on Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
Several landmark judgments have clarified the contours of the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India.

Below are some of the most significant ones:

1. Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., AIR 1994 SC 860: In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India interpreted the term "public policy" under the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961, now encapsulated in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that enforcement of a foreign award could be refused on the grounds of public policy only if it was contrary to:
   • Fundamental policy of Indian law;
   • Interests of India;
   • Justice or morality.
   The Renusagar judgment set a narrow interpretation of "public policy," limiting it to fundamental principles of Indian law and not allowing courts to refuse enforcement based on a wider conception of public policy.
    
2. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. SAW Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705: This case expanded the interpretation of "public policy" concerning domestic awards. The Supreme Court ruled that an award that is "patently illegal" would be considered against public policy. This expansion raised concerns that the same broad interpretation could apply to foreign awards, affecting their enforcement.
    
3. Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa, (2014) 2 SCC 433: The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of "public policy" for foreign awards in this case. It held that the broader definition of public policy laid down in SAW Pipes would not apply to foreign awards. The Court reaffirmed the narrow interpretation in Renusagar, restoring confidence in the enforcement of foreign awards by rejecting a wider interpretation that could lead to excessive judicial interference.
    
4. Noy Vallesina Engineering SPA v. Jindal Drugs Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 553: The Bombay High Court emphasized that Indian courts should not delve into the merits of the case when considering the enforcement of a foreign award. The Court held that a foreign arbitral award can only be refused enforcement on the limited grounds mentioned in Section 48 of the Act, and mere procedural irregularities or disagreements with the award do not constitute grounds for refusal.
    
5. Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd., (2008) 4 SCC 190: The Supreme Court dealt with the enforcement of foreign awards concerning a claim for anti-arbitration injunctions. The Court held that Indian courts should not entertain such claims unless the case falls under the narrow grounds provided in Section 48. This judgment was significant in discouraging frivolous litigation aimed at delaying enforcement.
    
6. NTPC v. Singer Company, (1992) 3 SCC 551: Before the 1996 Act, the Supreme Court in this case interpreted the enforcement of foreign awards under the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961. The judgment highlighted the principles of comity of nations and the need for recognizing foreign arbitral awards unless they are against the public policy of India.
    
7. Cairn India Ltd. v. Government of India, 2022: In this recent case, Cairn India Ltd. sought enforcement of a foreign arbitral award against the Government of India. The Permanent Court of Arbitration awarded Cairn substantial damages, and the company approached courts in various jurisdictions, including India, for enforcement. This case highlighted the challenges and diplomatic implications of enforcing foreign awards against sovereign states.

Conclusion
The legal framework for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India is well established and aligns with international standards. The Indian judiciary, through its landmark judgments, has reinforced its commitment to a pro-enforcement bias, limiting the grounds for refusal and aligning with the objectives of the New York Convention.

While challenges remain, particularly concerning public policy and procedural delays, the trajectory of the Indian courts shows a consistent trend toward respecting and enforcing foreign arbitral awards. This trend is crucial for maintaining India's reputation as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction and fostering confidence among international investors and stakeholders.