2003 (11) TMI 351 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Execution of arbitral award under section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Interpretation of the term "refused" in section 36 regarding the enforceability of the award.
3. Whether the refusal of an application under section 34 must be final for the award to be executed.
4. Consideration of appeal as a continuation of the original proceedings.
5. Applicability of the Civil Procedure Code to arbitration proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the execution of an arbitral award under section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner had filed an application to set aside the award, which was dismissed by the District Judge. The respondent filed for execution of the award, leading to a dispute over the enforceability of the award while an appeal was pending before the Supreme Court.

2. The main issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "refused" in section 36 concerning the enforceability of the award. The petitioner argued that the refusal must be final after all appeal proceedings, while the respondent contended that the refusal by the District Judge was sufficient for execution.

3. The court analyzed the language of section 36 and concluded that the word "refused" does not necessitate a final refusal after all appellate stages. The refusal referred to in the section pertains to the application filed before the District Judge under section 34, making the award executable once such application has been refused at the first instance.

4. Regarding the consideration of appeal as a continuation of the original proceedings, the court cited various legal precedents to establish that an appeal is a separate legal proceeding arising from the original application. An appeal does not automatically stay the operation of the order challenged, and the appellate court possesses the power to grant a stay.

5. The judgment also affirmed the applicability of the Civil Procedure Code to arbitration proceedings, providing the appellate court with the power to grant a stay during the appeal process. The petitioner was deemed to have remedies available during the appeal before the Supreme Court, and the High Court found no grounds to intervene.

In conclusion, the petition was dismissed, upholding the enforceability of the arbitral award under section 36 and clarifying the role of appeal as a separate legal proceeding with the power to grant a stay under the Civil Procedure Code.