When a foreign award is enforced in India under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the losing party can resist enforcement on limited grounds. The question in Nagaraj V. Mylandla v. PI Opportunities Fund-I and others (2026 INSC 298, decided 25 March 2026) was whether that party could reopen factual issues that the courts of the seat had already decided against it.
The Supreme Court applied the principle of transnational issue estoppel: a party that has lost on a factual issue before the seat court cannot relitigate the same settled factual issue before the Indian enforcement court. The Court noted that examination on the ground of public policy remains available to the enforcement court.
Why it matters: this strengthens India's position as an enforcement-friendly jurisdiction. Award-debtors can no longer use enforcement proceedings in India as a second trial of facts already decided abroad.
The practical takeaway: in cross-border disputes, challenges to an award should be fought fully and properly at the seat. Holding arguments back for the enforcement stage in India is now a far weaker strategy.
This note summarises the reported judgment for general information and is not legal advice on any specific matter.