Summary
An executing court could not reopen the merits of a final arbitral award or treat a substantially smaller, unproved and uncertified payment as full satisfaction. The Court rejected the judgment debtors’ objections and directed recovery of the award after calculation of the amount due.
Issues
- Whether merits objections and an alleged out-of-court payment justified dismissal of award execution.
Provisions considered
- Sections 35 and 36, as then applicable, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996The final award was binding and enforceable as a civil decree following the failed Section 34 challenge. (¶ 17–20)
- Section 47 and Order XXI Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Execution could not revisit merits, and the alleged payment was not proved or certified in the required manner. (¶ 21–37)
Held
- An executing court must enforce the decree as it stands, subject to a limited inquiry into root jurisdictional nullity. These objections attacked merits and ought to have been raised in arbitration or the statutory challenge, not execution. (¶¶ 21, 29–31)
- The alleged Rs.3,37,885 payment could not satisfy an award whose principal alone exceeded Rs.10 lakh. The account copy was unproved, and no certification under Order XXI Rule 2 supported recognition of the claimed payment. (¶ 32–37)
Result
Appeal allowed with Rs.25,000 costs. Both impugned orders set aside; executing court to calculate the entire decretal amount under the award and issue recovery warrant within one month.