9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the validity of the decree under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC based on objections regarding the arbitration agreement and award. Analysis: The judgment debtor raised objections challenging the validity of the decree, claiming it to be void ab initio and a nullity. The objections included the absence of an arbitration agreement between the parties and alleged violations of the law in the award and proceedings. However, the judgment noted that the applicant, who is a Director of a company involved, had previously participated in arbitration proceedings and even filed an application challenging the award's validity, which was later withdrawn. The court highlighted that the Arbitration Act provides specific grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34, emphasizing the need for proof of incapacity, invalid arbitration agreement, lack of notice, decisions beyond arbitration scope, tribunal composition issues, or public policy conflicts. The judgment emphasized the time limit of three months for such applications and the finality and enforceability of arbitral awards under Sections 35 and 36. The court found that the challenge regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement falls under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and cannot be pursued through the current application. It noted that the judgment debtor was aware of these legal provisions, having previously filed an application under Section 34, which was subsequently withdrawn. The court emphasized that once an application under Section 34 is dismissed or withdrawn, the award becomes final and enforceable as a decree of the court. The judgment highlighted that while a judgment debtor has the right to challenge a decree's validity during execution, such challenges should be made under the Arbitration Act's provisions, which are akin to Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. In conclusion, the court dismissed the application, finding no merit in the objections raised by the judgment debtor. Since the decretal amount had already been paid, the execution petition was disposed of as satisfied. The judgment underscored the importance of following the appropriate legal procedures and grounds for challenging arbitral awards, emphasizing the finality and enforceability of such awards under the Arbitration Act.
|
