By Shailraj Jhalnia.
Shailraj Jhalnia is a 3rd year student at National Law School of India University, Bangalore.
The New York Convention provides two channels of objection in international arbtration. The losing party may either seek to set aside the award at the arbitral seat, or they may seek to resist its enforcement in other jurisdictions (van den Berg).
The Indian Supreme Court discussed this conflict in Nagaraj V. Mylandla v PI Opportunities Fund-I, in which the court adopted a pro-enforcement position (para. 1).
The Court formally appliedthe doctrine of transnational issue estoppel, which barred the award debtors from relitigating factual determinations that had already been settled in the Singapore seat court (paras. 57, 76).
While the judgment was correct, the reasoning is unclear on the application of issue estoppel to factual determinations, and the independent review of domestic law through a public policy analysis (Koh Swee Yen et al., p. 38). Such imprecision creates an unsound doctrinal gap to be filled by future cases, failing to demarcate the proper deference to a seat court or the proper protection of its own sovereign statutes (paras. 73-74).
Nagaraj V Mylandla v PI Opportunities Fund-I was a dispute where the promoters of Financial Software and Systems Private Ltd (FSSPL) did not pay the investors a mutually agreed exit (4-9). The SIAC tribunal thus granted the investors about 1,100 crores in damages, directing a share surrender on payment to avoid recovering twice (paras. 14-15). The case was dismissed by the Singapore High Court, which indicated beyond doubt that this forcing surrender was not an illegal buy-back (paras. 18-24).
In its Indian enforcement action, the promoters raised three grounds of public policy objection under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Concilitation Act, 1996: (i) the award granted an unlawful buy-back under the Companies Act, (ii) specific performance in addition to damages violated the SRA, and (iii) the promoters improperly invoked various remedies (paras. 28, 31, 33, 40-42). The Singapore seat court rejected the buy-back and multiple remedies objection (paras. 22-24, 86).
To preclude relitigation through issue estoppel, a foreign judgment must be final, conclusive, and rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction (Yukos, para. 147; Deutsche Telekom, paras. 63-64). The doctrine fundamentally requires a strict identification of subject matter between the prior and subsequent proceedings (Chong, p. 877).
Public policy, however, is inherently domestic. The English Court of Appeal in Yukos Capital SARL v OJSC Rosneft Oil Company emphasised that public policy standards vary considerably across countries. Consequently, one court’s ruling on public policy does not automatically answer the public policy questions of another (Yukos, para. 151).
The Indian Supreme Court acknowledged this reality in Nagaraj V Mylandla v PI Opportunities Fund-I (para. 69). The Singapore Court of Appeal has taken a similar stance, explicitly holding that transnational issue estoppel cannot arise in respect of a foreign judgment that conflicts with the public policy of the enforcement jurisdiction (Deutsche Telekom, paras. 86, 177(d)).
Issues engaging the enforcement forum’s international public policy or its overriding mandatory rules are therefore generally immune from issue estoppel (Chong, pp. 878-879; Hulley, paras. 72-74).
To overcome the hurdle of transnational issue estoppel, the award-debtors attempted to re-label a settled factual dispute as a violation of domestic public policy. A public policy challenge inherently contains both factual and legal components. In Nagaraj V Mylandla v PI Opportunities Fund-I, the promoters’ objection relied on the factual premise that the mandated share surrender was functionally a buy-back, coupled with the legal premise that such a buy-back violated the Indian Companies Act (paras. 22, 28-29).
However, the Singapore High Court had already evaluated the factual matrix and definitively concluded that no “buy-back” had occurred, characterising the transaction merely as a surrender of shares (paras. 23-24, 81). The Indian Supreme Court rightly held that an enforcement court cannot undertake a merits-based review to reopen factual issues already conclusively settled by the seat court (para. 76). The Court noted that a party cannot circumvent issue estoppel simply “by giving a different colour to a factual issue” to disguise it as a public policy violation under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act (para. 83).
This reasoning aligns seamlessly with international preclusion standards. Once arbitral awards receive judicial confirmation from the seat court, they definitively bind the parties to the established underlying factual predicates (Born, pp. 113, 120).
The analytical gap in Nagaraj V Mylandla v PI Opportunities Fund-I is most apparent in its handling of the SRA objection. The Supreme Court dismissed this statutory objection by loosely observing that the seat court “looked into it and concluded that there was no such violation,” thereby holding that no merits-based evaluation by the enforcement court was permissible (para. 86). The application of the SRA is fundamentally a question of Indian statutory interpretation, not a conclusively settled factual premise. A Singapore court’s view on an Indian legislative enactment cannot create a transnational issue estoppel that binds an Indian enforcement court’s independent public policy analysis.
The judgment’s primary failure lies in ignoring the vital taxonomy articulated by the Singapore High Court in Sacofa Sdn Bhd v Super Sea Cable Networks. That decision draws a bright line between “forum-connected issues”, which questions tied to the specific legal position in the forum court where the enforcement court retains exclusive competence, and “forum-neutral issues,” which encompass general arbitral procedures and factual predicates (para. 74).
While transnational issue estoppel rightly applies to decisions of a prior enforcement court when the specific issue concerns a forum-neutral issue, it should not automatically preclude an enforcement court’s review of forum-connected issues (Koh Swee Yen et al., pp. 76-77). By failing to cleanly apply this distinction, the Supreme Court blurred the line between factual preclusion and independent statutory interpretation.
The vagueness of the Court in not clearly distinguishing between unreviewable factual predicates and reviewable questions of domestic law poses a risk that bona fide public policy objections based on Indian statutes, like the Companies Act or FEMA, may be unjustly defeated through estoppel. The foreign seat court is not competent to consider Indian public policy. In case Indian courts blindly extend the transnational issue estoppel to such mixed questions, they are exposing themselves to abdication of their sovereign judicial responsibility (paras. 47, 55).
This ambiguity directly affects litigation strategy. Parties should pay close attention to the question of whether they should exercise their so-called active remedy of challenging the award at the seat or their so-called passive remedy of opposing the enforcement locally. In case the risk of challenging the award at the seat is that an issue estoppel will be applied too broadly, the parties may simply avoid seat court challenges altogether thus defeating the supervisory structure of the New York Convention (Koh Swee Yen et al., pp. 55-56).
Nagaraj V Mylandla v PI Opportunities Fund-I is a favorable move towards enforcing foreign arbitral decisions in India. The Court’s application of transnational issue estoppel serves the foundational purpose of finality in international commercial arbitration preventing award-debtors from converting enforcement proceedings into a second opportunity to relitigate the merits under the cover of a public policy objection (Section 48 of the Arbitration Act). By refusing to allow the award-debtor to paint a different colour over a factual issue to enable him to pass it off as a breach of a public policy, the judgment rightly circumscopes the limited ability of an enforcement court to review
(paras 57, 76, 83).
However, the analytical basis of the judgment does not lack its cracks. By over-ruling the objection about the SRA on the ground that the seat court had investigated it, the Court had confused an estoppable factual premise with a domestic statutory interpretation question. This imprecision leaves a gap in doctrine, not making clear where settled facts, which should not be relitigated, and questions of domestic legal policy, which should be left the prerogative of the court of enforcement, are the same.
Future Indian enforcement courts should adopt the stricter Sacofa taxonomy explicitly: where the public policy objection turns on the interpretation of a domestic Indian statute the Companies Act, FEMA, the SEBI Act, or any other mandatory regulatory enactment that question must be treated as a forum-connected issue immune from transnational issue estoppel, regardless of whether a seat court addressed the same facts.(Chong, pp. 878-879).
Finally, although the Mylandla judgment is right in protecting the enforcement proceedings by not subjecting them to a factual review of the merits, it is a warning to itself. The use of transnational issue estoppel is a very important mechanism in ensuring that international commercial arbitration is final and efficient. But it should not be applied to the detriment of the basic role of an enforcement court to rule upon its own public policy. Guarding the integrity of the arbitral process should not be at the expense of the sovereign right to interpret and apply domestic law (Koh Swee Yen et al., pp. 76-77).
Copyright© 2026 Milon K. Banerji Centre for Arbitration Law instituted at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. All rights reserved.
