Executing Court Cannot Go Behind Award To Modify Or Declare It Void: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Update: 2024-12-10 11:20 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi has held that executing court cannot go behind the award or decree to modify or declare it void. Brief Facts This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the Executing Court by which while dismissing the petition, the court also set aside the award. It is the contention of the appellant...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi has held that executing court cannot go behind the award or decree to modify or declare it void.

Brief Facts

This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the Executing Court by which while dismissing the petition, the court also set aside the award.

It is the contention of the appellant that award had become final as the respondent / judgment debtor has not filed any appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1996'), therefore, once the award has attained finality, the Executing Court has wrongly declared the same as void and dismissed the execution proceedings.

The respondent also agree with the submissions of the appellants.

Observations:

The court observed that “It is a settled law that Executing Court cannot go behind the award or decree to modify or declare it void. The role of the Executing Court is only to execute the award or decree.”

“The grounds available under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 are not available to the Executing Court to declare any award void or set aside. As per Section 35 of the Act of 1996 the arbitral award is final and binding on the parties. Section 36(1) of the Act of 1996 says that where the time for making an application to set aside the award under Section 34 has expired, the award shall be enforceable.”

The court noted that the respondents also admitted that no such objection was filed before Executing Court that award is not executable and the Executing Court has suo moto passed an order dismissing the execution proceeding.

“We are surprised and shocked that how the impugned order has been passed declaring the award void by dismissing the application for execution” the court observed.

Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the execution petition was restored.

Case Title: AKME FINTRADE (INDIA) LTD. Versus SEEMA JAIN AND OTHERS

Case Number: ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 131 of 2024

Judgment Date: 5/12/2024

Click Here To Read/Download The Order 

Full View


Tags:    

Similar News