Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Comparative Analysis of Nepal and India's Compliance with International Standards
Keywords:
International Arbitration, Foreign Arbitral Awards, Recognition and Enforcement, Public Policy Exception, Reciprocity Principle, Finality of Awards, Due Process, Pro-Arbitration Jurisdiction, Cross-Border Dispute Resolution, Emergency Arbitration, Legal Harmonization.Abstract
This paper presents a comparative analysis of Nepal and India's compliance to principles and standards concerning the recognition and enforcement regime of foreign awards. This paper delineates the legal framework governing recognition and enforcement, and analyzes the application of essential legal principles such as public policy, reciprocity, finality, and due process in both jurisdictions. India's progressive legislative changes, pro-enforcement judicial stance, and alignment with global standards stand in stark contrast to Nepal's broad judicial discretion, procedural inflexibility, and insufficient integration of international principles. Case law analysis highlights the narrowing of the public policy exception and the reduction of judicial interference in India, in contrast with Nepal’s inconsistent standards and broader grounds for refusal. This paper highlights substantial gaps in Nepal's legal framework and judicial practices, recommending specific improvements based on India's experience to bolster Nepal's reputation as a venue for international arbitration. The analysis contributes to the discourse on harmonizing arbitration practices in South Asia and underscores the importance of consistent enforcement regimes for promoting investor confidence and cross-border commerce.
References
Compliance with and Enforcement of ICSID Awards, ICSID Background Paper ¶ 36 (June 2024) ; Drummond Ltd. v. Ferrovias en Liquidación, Ferrocariles Nacionales de Colombia S.A. (FENOCO), Supreme Court of Justice (Colom.), Dec. 19, 2011, 11001-0203-000-2008-01760-00.
Javier Rubinstein & Georgina Fabian, The Territorial Scope of the New York Convention and Its Implementation in Common and Civil Law Countries, in ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS: THE NEW YORK CONVENTION IN PRACTICE 91, 93 (Emmanuel Gaillard & Domenico Di Pietro eds., 2008); Bernd Ehle, Commentary on Article I, in NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS OF 10 JUNE 1958 – COMMENTARY 26, 77 (Reinmar Wolff ed., 2012); Pavan s.r.l. v. Leng d'Or, S.A., Court of First Instance (Spain), June 11, 2007, 584/06, XXXV Y.B. COM. ARB. 444 (2010).
Albert Jan van den Berg, The New York Convention of 1958: An Overview, XXVIII Y.B. COM. ARB. (2003); Boris E. Shifman, Developments in Adoption of the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1 AM. REV. INT'L ARB. 2 (1990).
Justice Indu Malhotra, Courts Have Bolstered India's Reputation for Arbitration, DECCAN HERALD (Aug. 15, 2024), https://www.deccanherald.com/india/courts-have-bolstered-indiasreputation-for-arbitration-justice-kohli-3135420. (last visited Sept. 20, 2025).
Bhanu Prasad Acharya v. Damodhar Ropeway and Construction Company et. al., NKP 2067 (2011), vol. 5, Decision no. 8368 (Nepal).
Penny Madden KC & Ceyda Knoebel, Arbitrability and Public Policy Challenges, in THE GUIDE TO CHALLENGING AND ENFORCING ARBITRATION AWARDS (4th ed. 2025),
Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa, AIRONLINE 2013 SC 191, ¶ 31 (India).
Axiata Invs. (UK) Ltd. v. Nepal, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/3, Award (June 14, 2024).
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards art. V(2)(b), June 10, 1958, 330 U.N.T.S. 38.
Id.
Margaret L. Moses, Public Policy under the New York Convention: National, International, and Transnational, in 60 YEARS OF THE NEW YORK CONVENTION: KEY ISSUES AND FUTURE CHALLENGES 177 (Katia Fach Gomez et al. eds., Kluwer Law Int'l 2019); see also UNCITRAL Secretariat Guide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York 1958) 254–56, ¶¶ 42–46 (2016 ed.).
Egerton v. Brownlow, (1853) 4 HLC 1, [1843-60] All ER Rep. 970, 995 (Eng.).
Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Société Générale de L'Industrie du Papier (RAKTA), 508 F.2d 969, 974 (2d Cir. 1974).
UNCITRAL Model Law on Int'l Com. Arb. art. 34, U.N. Doc. A/40/17, Annex I (June 21, 1985), amended July 7, 2006, U.N. Doc. A/61/17.
Pushkar raj Pandey v. Sabina Pandey, NKP 2068, Decision No. 8572 (Nepal).
Bhanu Prasad Acharya v. Damodhar Ropeway and Construction Company et. al., NKP 2067 (2011), vol. 5, Decision no. 8368 (Nepal)..
Renusagar Power Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., (1994) Supp. (1) SCC 644 (India).
Oil & Natural Gas Corp. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705 (India).
Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L., (2020) 11 S.C.C. 1 (India).
Norsolor S.A. v. Pabalk Ticaret Ltd. Sirketi, Cour d'appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Paris, Nov. 19, 1982, I I0I92 (Fr.);
undesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Apr. 14, 1988, III ZR 12/87 (Ger.); GSS Grp. Ltd. (Glob. Sec. Seals Grp. Ltd.) v. Nat'l Port Auth., 680 F.3d 805 (D.C. Cir. 2012); Oberlandesgericht [OLG] [Higher Regional Court] Hamburg, Apr. 15, 1964, II Y.B. COM. ARB. 232 (1977) (Ger.); Yukos Oil Co. v. Dardana Ltd., [2002] EWCA (Civ) 543 (Eng.).
Gas Auth. of India Ltd. v. Spie Capag S.A., High Court of Delhi, Suit No. 1440, IA No. 5206 (Oct. 15, 1993) (India); La Société Nationale Pour La Recherche, La Production, Le Transport, La Transformation et la Commercialisation Des Hydrocarbures v. Shaneen Natural Res. Co., 585 F. Supp. 57 (S.D.N.Y. 1983); Société Européenne d'Etudes et d'Entreprises (S.E.E.E.) v. République Socialiste Fédérale de Yougoslavie, Cour d'appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Rouen, Nov. 13, 1984, 982/82 (Fr.).
Kersa Holding Company Luxembourg v. Infancourtage, Famajuk Investment and Isny, Court of Appeal of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 24 November 1993, XXI Y.B. COM. ARB. 617 (1996); Oberlandesgericht [OLG] Hamm, Germany, 6 July 1994, XXII Y.B. COM. ARB. 702 (1997).
Kersa Holding Company Luxembourg v. Infancourtage, Famajuk Investment and Isny, Court of Appeal of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 24 November 1993, XXI Y.B. COM. ARB. 617 (1996)
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, No. 26 of 1996, § 44(b), INDIA CODE (1996).
Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. High Court Patan, NKP 2079, Decision No. 10904 (Nepal).
National Construction Co. Nepal v. Appellate Court Patan, N.K.P. 2075, Decision No. 7933 (Nepal).
Hanil Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd v. High Court Patan et. al., NKP 2075 (2019), volume
, Decision no. 10138 (Nepal)
The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, No. 3 of 2016, India Code (1996); The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, No. 33 of 2019, India Code (1996).
Anil Kumar Pokhrel v. Kathmandu District Court, NKP 2067, vol. 4, Decision no. 8437 (Nepal).
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards art. V(1)(b), June 10, 1958, 330 U.N.T.S. 38.
Hanil Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd v. High Court Patan et. al., NKP 2075 (2019), volume 11, Decision no. 10138 (Nepal)
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards art. I, June 10, 1958, 330 U.N.T.S. 38.
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards art. III, June 10, 1958, 330 U.N.T.S. 38.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, No. 26 of 1996, § 44, India Code (1996).
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards art. IV, June 10, 1958, 330 U.N.T.S. 38.
Govt. of India v. Vedanta Ltd., (2020) 10 SCC 1 (India).
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards art. V, June 10, 1958, 330 U.N.T.S. 38.
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 644 (India).
Bhanu Prasad Acharya v. Damodhar Ropeway and Construction Company et. al., NKP 2067 (2011), vol. 5, Decision no. 8368 (Nepal).
UNCITRAL Model Law on Int'l Com. Arb. art. 34, U.N. Doc. A/40/17, Annex I (June 21, 1985), amended July 7, 2006, U.N. Doc. A/61/17.
Id. art. 35.
Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi SRL, (2020) 11 SCC 1 (India).
Anil Kumar Pokhrel v. Kathmandu District Court, N.K.P. 2067, vol. 4, decision no. 8437 (Nepal).
UNCITRAL Model Law on Int'l Com. Arb. art. 36, U.N. Doc. A/40/17, Annex I (June 21, 1985), amended July 7, 2006, U.N. Doc. A/61/17.
Hanil Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd v. High Court Patan et. al., NKP 2075 (2019), volume 11, Decision no. 10138 (Nepal).
UNCITRAL Model Law on Int'l Com. Arb. art. 5, U.N. Doc. A/40/17, Annex I (June 21, 1985), amended July 7, 2006, U.N. Doc. A/61/17.
Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, No. 3 of 2016, India Code (2016).
Supreme Court Bar Ass’n v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409 (India).
Justice Indu Malhotra, Courts Have Bolstered India's Reputation for Arbitration, DECCAN HERALD (Aug. 15, 2024), https://www.deccanherald.com/india/courts-have-bolstered-indiasreputation-for-arbitration-justice-kohli-3135420. (last visited Sept. 20, 2025).
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 330 U.N.T.S. 3.
UNCITRAL Model Law on Int'l Com. Arb., U.N. Doc. A/40/17, Annex I (June 21, 1985), amended July 7, 2006, U.N. Doc. A/61/17.
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, No. 26 of 1996, INDIA CODE (1996).
Cent. Org. for Ry. Electrification v. M/s ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV), (2020) 14 S.C.C. 712 (India).
Aishwary Kumar Tiwari, Indian Supreme Court's Internationalist Approach to Arbitration: Justified Under the 1985 Model Law? Should It Apply to Domestic Disputes?, DAILY JUS (Mar. 19, 2025), https://dailyjus.com/world/2025/03/indian-supreme-courts-internationalist-approach-toarbitration.
PT First Media TBK v. Astro Nusantara Int’l BV [2013] SGCA 57 (Sing.).
Amazon.com NV Inv. Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd., (2022) 1 S.C.C. 209 (India).
Renusagar Power Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 1994 Supp. (1) S.C.C. 644 (India).
Oil & Natural Gas Corp. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705 (India).
Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL, (2020) 11 S.C.C. 1 (India).
Arbitration Act, 1999 (Nepal).
Bhanu Prasad Acharya v. Damodhar Ropeway & Constr. Co., N.K.P. 2074, vol. 10, Dec. No. 9847 (Nepal).
Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. High Court, Patan, NKP 2079, Decision No. 10904.
National Construction Co. Nepal v. Appellate Court Patan, N.K.P. 2075, Decision No. 7933
(Nepal).
Amazon.com NV Inv. Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd., (2021) 3 SCC 275 (India).
Shreya Jain, Mrinali Komandur & Shweta Kabra, 2024 Year in Review: Arbitration in India—Reset or Rewind?, KLUWER ARB. BLOG (Feb. 15, 2025), https://arbitrationblog. kluwerarbitration.com/2025/02/15/2024-year-in-review-arbitration-in-india-reset-or-rewind/.
Tomorrow Sales Agency v. SBS Holdings, O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 123/2023 (Delhi H.C. May 2023)
(India).
Nepal Electricity Auth. v. Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. Ltd., Supreme Court, N.K.P. 2075 Vol. 11, Decision No. 10189, p. 91 (Nepal).
Amadeus IT Group S.A. v. Himalaya Airlines Pvt. Ltd, High Court Patan, 2081 (Nepal).
Hanil Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd v. High Court Patan et. al., NKP 2075 (2019), volume 11, Decision no. 10138 (Nepal).
