Reciprocal Provisions under S 44 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996

Over the last decade, we have been receiving queries regarding jurisdictions which are declared under Section 44(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Readers have also sought copy of the notifications. This post seeks to put an end to all the queries. Available notifications can be accessed from here and here. The list of jurisdictions which are recognised through gazette notifications is given below. Rarely, awards/ arbitrations in some jurisdictions were indirectly recognised by courts even though the point regarding notification may not have been raised is also given. 

S. No.	Country/ Jurisdiction	Gazette Notification Ref.	Judgment Reference
1	Australia	Ministry of Law & Justice Notification No. SO 2252(E) dt. 12.09.2008
2	Austria	Ministry of Foreign Trade Notification No. S.O. 732 (E) dt. 24.11.1972
3	Belgium	Ministry of Commerce & Supplies Notification No. S.O. 290 (E) dt. 28.04.1980
4	Botswana	Ministry of Commerce No. S.O. 42(E) dt. 07.01.1978
5	Bulgaria	Ministry of Foreign Trade Notification No. S.O. 428 (E) dt. 14.06.1972
6	Canada	Ministry of Law & Justice Notification No. SO 327(E) dt. 26.03.2003
7	Central African Republic	Ministry of Commerce No. S.O. 85 (E) dt. 03.02.1983
8	Cuba	Ministry of Commerce No. S.O. 42(E) dt. 07.01.1978
9	Denmark	Ministry of Commerce No. S.O. 42(E) dt. 07.01.1978
10	Dubai		Mulheim Pipecoatings GmbH. vs. Welspun Fintrade Limited and Ors. (16.08.2013 - BOMHC) : MANU/MH/1285/2013
11	Ecuador	Ministry of Foreign Trade Notification No. S.O. 428 (E) dt. 14.06.1972
12	Egypt	Ministry of Commerce No. S.O. 42(E) dt. 07.01.1978
13	Finland		Finnish Fund for Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. VME Precast Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (14.10.2020 - MADHC) : MANU/TN/5710/2020
14	France (Paris)		W.P.I.L. vs. NTPC Ltd. and Ors. (16.01.2009 - DELHC) : MANU/DE/0078/2009
15	German Democratic Republic	Ministry of Commerce No. S.O. 42(E) dt. 07.01.1978
16	Ghana	Ministry of Commerce No. S.O. 282 (E) dt. 16.05.1973
17	Greece	Ministry of Foreign Trade Notification No. S.O. 428 (E) dt. 14.06.1972
18	Japan	Ministry of Foreign Trade Notification No. S.O. 732 (E) dt. 24.11.1972	Aksh Optifibre Ltd. vs. Shin Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd. and Ors. (12.01.2005 - RAJHC) : MANU/RH/0032/2005
19	Kuwait	Ministry of Commerce No. S.O. 86 (E) dt. 03.02.1983 & Ministry of Law & Justice Notification No. GSR894(E) dt. 06.12.2022 (published on 22.12.2022), MANU/LAFF/0034/2022
20	Malagasy Republic	Ministry of Commerce No. S.O. 42(E) dt. 07.01.1978
21	Malaysia	Ministry of Law & Justice Notification No. SO 754(E) dt. 11.08.2000
22	Mauritius	Ministry of Law & Justice Notification No. SO 1881(E) dt. 13.07.2015
23	Mexico	Ministry of Commerce No. S.O. 42(E) dt. 07.01.1978
24	Morrocco	Ministry of Commerce No. S.O. 282 (E) dt. 16.05.1973
25	Nigeria	Ministry of Commerce No. S.O. 282 (E) dt. 16.05.1973
26	Norway	Ministry of Foreign Trade Notification No. S.O. 428 (E) dt. 14.06.1972
27	People's Republic of China (including Hongkong SAR &  Macao SAR	Ministry of Law & Justice Notification No. SO 580(E) dt. 19.03.2012
28	Philippines	Ministry of Foreign Trade Notification No. S.O. 732 (E) dt. 24.11.1972
29	Poland	Ministry of Commerce Notification No. S.O. 1238 dt. 29.02.1968
30	Rumania	Ministry of Foreign Trade Notification No. S.O. 428 (E) dt. 14.06.1972
31	San Marino	Ministry of Commerce Notification No. S.O. 84 (E) dt. 03.02.1983
32	Singapore	Ministry of Law & Justice Notification No. SO 542(E) dt. 06.07.1999
33	Sweden	Ministry of Foreign Trade Notification No. S.O. 732 (E) dt. 24.11.1972
34	Switzerland		Pasl Wind Solutions Private Limited vs. GE Power Conversion India Private Limited, [2021] 4 S.C.R. 532 : MANU/SC/0295/2021(strictly, not a decision enforcing a foreign award)
35	Syria	Ministry of Commerce, Supplies & Co-operation Notification No. S.O. 2920 dt. 25.09.1978
36	Tanzania	Ministry of Foreign Trade Notification No. S.O. 732 (E) dt. 24.11.1972
37	Thailand	Ministry of Foreign Trade Notification No. S.O. 732 (E) dt. 24.11.1972
38	The Netherlands	Ministry of Foreign Trade Notification No. S.O. 732 (E) dt. 24.11.1972
39	Trinidad & Tobago	Ministry of Commerce No. S.O. 42(E) dt. 07.01.1978
40	Tunisia	Ministry of Commerce No. S.O. 282 (E) dt. 16.05.1973
41	United Kingdom	Ministry of Commerce No. S.O. 4302 dt. 25.10.1976
42	United States of America	Ministry of Foreign Trade Notification No. S.O. 732 (E) dt. 24.11.1972	International Nut Alliance LLC vs. Johns Cashew Company (09.12.2021 - KERHC) : MANU/KE/3139/2021; Integrated Sales Services Limited  vs.  DMC Management Consultants Ltd. and Ors. (18.04.2016 - BOMHC) : MANU/MH/0557/2016

 In case readers come across other jurisdictions relating to this, please let us know.

Defective Petitions to Challenge Arbitral Awards: Delhi High Court Settles the Law

 There have been numerous judgments on whether particular classes of defects in petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) for challenging arbitral awards make the petitions "non-est" in the eyes of law. Consequence of holding a petition invalid in the eyes of law means that time specified for filing challenge petitions in S. 34 would continue to run, notwithstanding filing of such incurably defective petitions. 

A Full Bench of the Delhi High Court has, on 07.02.2025, settled the law in Pragati Construction Consultants v UoI, 2025:DHC:717-FB. Para 97 of the judgment summarises the decision of the Full Bench on points of law and is quoted below:

"97. We summarise our answer to the Reference, as under:

a) Non-filing of the Arbitral Award alongwith an application under the Section 34 of the A&C Act would make the said application liable to be treated and declared as non-est, and the limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act shall continue to run in spite of such filing;

b) Mere non-filing of the Statement of Truth or a defect in Statement of Truth being filed, that is, including with blanks or without attestation, would not ipso facto, make the filing to be non-est. However, if accompanied with other defects, the Court may form an opinion, based on a cumulative list of such defects, that the filing was nonest;

c) Similarly, non-filing or filing of a defective Vakalatnama; the petition not being signed or properly verified; changes in the content of petition being made in form of addition/deletion of facts, grounds, or filing of additional documents from arbitral record, or filing with deficient court fee, each of these defects, individually would not render to filing of an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act to be treated and declared as non-est. However, presence of more than one of such defects may, in the given set of facts involved in a case, justify the conclusion of the Court that filing of the application was never intended to be final and therefore, is liable to be declared non-est."