Court Overrules Objections by Ilishan Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Upholds Enforcement Under Hague Apostille Convention
In a significant ruling on March 5, 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore enforced a foreign arbitral award in favor of Perkin Elmer US LLC against Ilishan Biotech Private Limited. The court, presided over by Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi, dismissed the objections raised by the respondent, Ilishan Biotech, regarding the enforcement of an arbitral award originally in favor of Bioo Scientific Corporation, which was later assigned to Perkin Elmer.
The dispute originated from a distributorship agreement between Bioo Scientific Corporation and Ilishan Biotech, which included an arbitration clause designating Austin, Texas as the seat of arbitration. The arbitration, conducted by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), resulted in an award favoring Bioo, which was subsequently assigned to Perkin Elmer.
The court addressed multiple objections raised by Ilishan Biotech, including the non-filing of original award documents, locus standi of Perkin Elmer as an assignee, alleged premature invocation of arbitration, jurisdictional challenges, violations of natural justice, and issues regarding the limitation of liability.
One of the pivotal points of contention was the admissibility of apostilled documents under the Hague Apostille Convention, 1961. The court, citing an office memorandum from the Ministry of External Affairs and judgments from the Supreme Court, upheld that apostilled documents are admissible in Indian courts without further legalization.
Justice Dwivedi also rejected the arguments regarding the premature invocation of arbitration, clarifying that informal negotiations were attempted, and the arbitration clause did not mandate such negotiations as a precondition. The court further established that the ICDR followed proper procedures in appointing the arbitrator after the parties failed to agree on one.
On the matter of natural justice, the court found that Ilishan Biotech was given ample opportunity to present its case, including extensions for filing counterclaims, which were not availed. The court also held that the lack of an oral hearing was consistent with the arbitration agreement's terms, which allowed for document-based arbitration.
The judgment reinforced the legal position that the merits of a foreign arbitral award are not open to review in enforcement proceedings, aligning with Indian and international arbitration principles. The court concluded that the award did not contravene public policy in India, thereby facilitating its enforcement.
The ruling is significant for its interpretation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly concerning the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and the applicability of the Hague Apostille Convention in India. The decision underscores India's commitment to upholding international arbitration agreements and awards, providing clarity on procedural aspects related to foreign arbitral awards.
Bottom Line:
Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India - Apostilled documents admissible under Hague Apostille Convention, 1961 - Assignment of arbitral award rights permissible under Indian law - Merits of the foreign arbitral award cannot be reviewed during enforcement proceedings in India.
Statutory provision(s): Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sections 46, 47, 48; Hague Apostille Convention, 1961; Notaries Act, 1952 Section 14.
