UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — Centre stalling Vedanta arbitration awards enforcement, says SC

Q1. With reference to the enforcement in India of an arbitral award made in a New York Convention country, consider the following statements: Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. If only some parts of the award decide matters falling within the submission to arbitration, and those parts can be separated, they may be enforced while the rest is refused.
  2. Enforcement may be refused if the arbitrator was appointed as the parties' agreement provided but not in the manner Indian arbitration law prescribes for appointments.
  3. Once the Indian court is satisfied that the award is enforceable, the award is deemed to be a decree of that court.
  • A. 1 and 2 only
  • B. 2 and 3 only
  • C. 1 and 3 only
  • D. 1, 2 and 3

Q2. With reference to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958), consider the following statements: Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. It obliges contracting States to recognise and enforce awards made in other contracting States, and allows refusal only on a limited set of grounds.
  2. It empowers the courts of the country where enforcement is sought to annul an award that they find defective.
  3. It applies only to disputes in which at least one of the parties is a State or a State-owned entity.
  • A. 1 and 2 only
  • B. 1 only
  • C. 1 and 3 only
  • D. 2 and 3 only

Q3. Consider the following statements regarding the enforcement of foreign awards under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Which of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

  1. An Indian court may refuse enforcement of a foreign award on the ground that its subject-matter cannot be settled by arbitration under Indian law, even if the resisting party has not proved this ground.
  2. Non-arbitrability under Indian law is one of the grounds that the party resisting enforcement must plead and prove before the court.
  • A. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
  • B. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
  • C. Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
  • D. Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct

Q4. With reference to the shift in India's upstream hydrocarbon contracts from the Production Sharing Contract (PSC) model to the Revenue Sharing Contract (RSC) model under the Hydrocarbon Exploration and Licensing Policy (HELP), consider the following statements: Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. Under the RSC model, the Government does not need to verify the contractor's expenditure to work out its own share.
  2. Under HELP, bidders quote the share of revenue they will give the Government at different levels of revenue.
  3. Under the PSC model, the Government's share of output was calculated on gross revenue before the contractor recovered any of its costs.
  • A. 1 and 2 only
  • B. 1, 2 and 3
  • C. 2 and 3 only
  • D. 1 only

Q5. Under a Production Sharing Contract for an oil field, the Government's auditors disallow a part of the costs that the contractor has claimed for recovery, while production and prices stay unchanged. What is the most direct consequence?

  • A. A fall in profit petroleum, as cost petroleum and profit petroleum rise and fall together
  • B. A fall in the field's gross revenue, shrinking the shares of both the parties
  • C. No change in the Government's take, which is fixed as a share of gross revenue
  • D. A rise in profit petroleum, which enlarges the Government's share of the output

Q6. Consider the following facts: An arbitration seated at Kuala Lumpur produced a final award in 2016 that rejected the Government of India's monetary demand on two contractors. Malaysia's Federal Court upheld the award in 2019. When the contractors sought enforcement in India, the Government objected on grounds of limitation, public policy and the tribunal's jurisdiction. The Delhi High Court rejected the objections in 2026, and the Supreme Court dismissed the Government's appeal. Which of the following inferences can validly be drawn?

  1. The decision of the Malaysian courts did not by itself make the award executable in India without an Indian court's finding that it was enforceable.
  2. If the Malaysian courts had set the award aside, that fact could have been a ground for refusing its enforcement in India.
  3. Indian courts can never refuse to enforce a foreign award once the courts of the seat have upheld it.
  • A. 1 only
  • B. 1, 2 and 3
  • C. 2 and 3 only
  • D. 1 and 2 only

Q7. Consider the following statements: Which of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

  1. Not every arbitral award made outside India can be enforced under the New York Convention chapter of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
  2. That chapter covers only awards made in territories that the Central Government, being satisfied that reciprocal provisions exist, has notified as territories to which the Convention applies.
  • A. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
  • B. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
  • C. Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
  • D. Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct