Even without the New Southern Policy, India is emerging as Korea's most popular trading partner in the 21st century. The increase in business disputes due to the continuous increase in trade volume between Korea and India will also come as a matter of course. In terms of dispute resolution, India is not a very good trading partner. It is questionable whether the number of cases currently pending in Indian courts is at a manageable level. The question arises whether arbitration, which is presented as an alternative to litigation, can also be an alternative to litigation due to excessive involvement of Indian courts. This is because, in the process of recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, Indian courts sometimes overturn arbitral awards on the basis of “violation of Indian public policy”.
Accordingly, this paper tries to point out the problems of Indian courts that approve and enforce international commercial arbitration awards made in foreign countries and take countermeasures against them. For this purpose, it is assumed that an Indian company and a Korean company in dispute receive an arbitration decision in Seoul and intend to enforce the arbitration award in India. The arbitration laws of each country based on the New York Convention require “public order and customs” or “not to go against good customs or other social order” for the approval and enforcement of overseas arbitration. In the case of Korea, according to Article 39 of the Arbitration Act, for the approval and enforcement of overseas arbitration, “according to the Convention” or by applying Article 127 of the Civil Procedure Act mutatis mutandis, “not against good customs or other social order” is required. India also stipulates that “not contrary to public order and morals in India” through Article 48 of the Arbitration Act in case of approval and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in India. However, it is difficult for the parties to the dispute to respond because the interpretation of the Indian courts on the scope of public policy is not consistent. This paper analyzes the precedents made over the past 35 years on "India's public order and customs" and presents the latest trends.