Introduction
On 28 September 2026, a bench of the Supreme Court of India (SCI) comprising the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the enforcement of an ICC award in favour of Amadeus IT Group S.A. against Ebix Cash Limited. The Court declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s (DHC) judgment of 1 July 2026, and the matter stands disposed. The episode illustrates a settled institutional disposition: Indian courts, and the SCI in particular, will not permit the enforcement of an arbitral award to be indefinitely deferred by recycled or technical objections.
The Dispute and the Award
The controversy arose from a Global Distribution Agreement dated 1 October 2019, under which Amadeus provided access to its travel distribution platform in the Asia-Pacific region and paid an advance incentive of approximately USD 15 million. Ebix Cash was obliged, inter alia, to acquire Yatra Online and to achieve stipulated airline booking targets. Amadeus terminated the agreement for non-fulfilment of those conditions and commenced arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
In February 2022, the tribunal awarded Amadeus over EUR 13.26 million. After recoveries in the United States, EUR 9.71 million remained outstanding in India, and Amadeus sought enforcement of the foreign award under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the DHC.
A Timeline Worth Noting
From the tribunal’s award to final disposal by the apex court, the process spanned roughly four and a half years, and this includes a full contest before the DHC and a Special Leave Petition heard on merits from counsel on both sides.
Date | Event |
1 October 2019 | Global Distribution Agreement executed |
February 2022 | ICC tribunal renders award of over EUR 13.26 million |
1 July 2026 | Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh J.) allows enforcement under Part II |
28 September 2026 | Supreme Court dismisses SLP (Diary No. 47784/2026); matter disposed |
For a cross-border award, enforced against a party contesting limitation and public policy in two constitutional courts, this is a noteworthy and welcome compact trajectory.
The Pro-Enforcement Disposition
Ebix advanced two principal objections. First, it contended that the enforcement petition was barred by limitation. The DHC held that limitation accrued when the signed award was communicated by the ICC Secretariat, and not automatically on the date of the award. This is a functional reading: time cannot run against a party that has not been placed in possession of the instrument it seeks to enforce. Second, Ebix argued that the underlying arrangement amounted to factoring and therefore offended Indian public policy. The DHC characterised the transaction as a commercial arrangement involving no assignment of receivables and rejected the argument.
The SCI’s order is brief: it saw “no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment” and dismissed the Special Leave Petition. A dismissal in limine of this kind does not lay down law, and it would be inaccurate to attribute fresh doctrine to it. Its significance however lies in what the SCI declined to do. It does not reopen the merits, and it does not permit a public-policy objection to be used as a vehicle for re-examining a commercial bargain.
That restraint is consistent with a well-established line of authority. Under Section 48 of the 1996 Act, enforcement of a foreign award may be refused only on the exhaustive grounds enumerated there. In Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi SRL ((2020) 14 SCC 1), the Supreme Court emphasised that the Section 48 grounds are to be construed narrowly and that courts do not sit in appeal over foreign awards. Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. (1994 Supp (1) SCC 644) had earlier confined the public-policy ground to the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of India and justice or morality, and Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa ((2014) 2 SCC 433) reaffirmed that a foreign award is not open to review on the merits at the enforcement stage.
Read against this background, the Court’s refusal to interfere is the continuation of a consistent policy. The judiciary is positioned as the enforcer of the parties’ chosen forum, and not as a second tribunal.
Conclusion
An arbitral award is only as valuable as its enforceability. By leaving intact a High Court judgment that had rejected limitation and public-policy objections, the SCI has reinforced confidence in India as an enforcement jurisdiction. For award-holders, the message is that a contested but principled route to recovery exists, and for award-debtors, that Section 48 is a narrow gateway and not a second appeal. Further, given that the award holder in this case was a Spanish company, it behoves well for India’s continuing push to incentivize and attract foreign investment to India. This is also of note to companies around the world who are comfortable with ICC rules of arbitration: there exists a high level of certainty that a validly declared award shall be executed to the fullest in India.
