Arbitration is a private and effective alternative to conventional litigation. Among multinational parties, arbitration has emerged as a significant mechanism for resolving commercial disputes. The success of arbitration as an efficient dispute settlement mechanism lies in a consistent and internationally recognised framework of rules that ensure the swift resolution of international investment and trade disputes. After the conclusion of arbitration proceedings, the arbitral tribunal renders an arbitral award; the next critical step involves the recognition and enforcement of the award before the enforcement courts. Given this, the article delves into a discussion of the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards pursuant to the 1958 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. This article highlights the difference between recognition and enforcement. It critically examines the formal requirements outlined in Article IV and grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement under Article V of the New York Convention. Through a transnational analysis of courts' jurisprudence beyond a minimalist approach, the article scrutinises the attitude of courts vis-à-vis enforcement, specifically in the light of pro-enforcement bias. By confronting the elephant in the room, this article pinpoints ongoing tension between the consistent application of the New York Convention and domestic court practices.