Sundaram Finance Limited vs Abdul Samad & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

15 February 2018

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 1650 of 2018

Result

Allowed

Bench

Jasti Chelameswar, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Citation

[2018] 10 S.C.R. 451 : 2018 INSC 146

Headnote

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.36, 32, 42 and 2(e) – Whether an award under the Act is required to be first filed in the court having jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings for execution and then to obtain transfer of the decree or whether the award can be straightway filed and executed in the Court where the assets are located – Held: s.36 of the Act shows that an award is to be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner as if it were a decree – The enforcement of an award through its execution can be filed anywhere in the country where such decree can be executed and there is no requirement for obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court, which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – ss.38,39,46 and Or.XXI, rr.6, 11(2). Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The section 36 states that an award is to be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner as if it were a decree. It is, thus, the enforcement mechanism, which is akin to the enforcement of a decree but the award itself is not a decree of the civil court as no decree whatsoever is passed by the civil court. It is the arbitral tribunal, which renders an award and the tribunal does not have the power of execution of a decree. For the purposes of execution of a decree the award is to be enforced in the same manner as if it was a decree under the said Code. [Para 15] [462-D-E]

2. The enforcement of an award through its execution can be filed anywhere in the country where such decree can be executed and there is no requirement for obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court, which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. [Para 22] [464-G] Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. 2009 159 DLT 579; Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited v. V. Balaji G. & Anr. 2011 (4) KLJ 408; Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Sivakama Sundari & Ors. (2011)

4 LW 745; Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Ram Sharan Gurjar & Anr. (2012) 1 RLW 960; GE Money Financial Services Ltd. v. Mohd. Azaz & Anr. 2013 SCC OnLine All 13365 = (2013) 100 ALR 766; Indusind Bank Ltd. v. Bhullar Transport Company MANU/PH/2896/2012; Sri Chandrashekhar v. Tata Motor finance Ltd. & Ors. (2015) 1 AIR Kant R 261 – approved.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. 1. The divergence of legal opinion of different High Courts on the question as to whether an award under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) is required to be first filed in the court having jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings for execution and then to obtain transfer of the decree or whether the award can be straightway filed and executed in the Court where the assets are located is required to be settled in the present appeal. Facts: 2. The appellant claims that the

View Subscription Plans →