The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain an Execution Application for enforcement of an Arbitral Award is not affected by a challenge of the Award under section 34 of the Act before a different Court, if the Execution Application was filed prior to the challenge.

B.P. Colabawalla, J.

1. Admit. By consent of parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. This Appeal takes exception to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21 January 2015. The impugned order was passed in a Chamber Summons taken out in execution proceedings seeking execution of an Arbitral Award passed in favour of Respondent No.1. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge negated the contention of the Appellant that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Execution Application and thereafter proceeded to direct the Appellant to disclose particulars of his assets as contemplated under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. The facts stated briefly are that the Appellant had taken certain finances as and by way of a loan from Respondent No.1. For the aforesaid loan transaction, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors. It is not in dispute that the loan agreement between the Appellant and Respondent No.1 incorporated an arbitration clause. As disputes arose between the parties, Respondent No.1 (claimant in the arbitration) invoked the arbitration clause and proceeded to arbitration. Thereafter, the Arbitral Tribunal passed an Award dated 4 December 2010 under which the Appellant and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein were jointly and severally directed to pay Respondent No.1 (claimant in the arbitration) a sum of Rs.18,16,818/- together with further interest at the rate of 24 % p.a. on Rs.9,61,216/- from 16 August 2009 and on Rs.8,55,602/- from 5 September 2009 respectively, till payment and / or realisation. In addition thereto, the Appellant and Respondent Nos.2 & 3 were ordered to pay a sum of Rs.3,500/- towards Arbitrator's fees and another sum of Rs.3,500/- towards the costs of the arbitration. Admittedly, the said Award has not been challenged either by the Appellant or by Respondent No.3 herein. 4. However, the said Award was challenged in this Court by Respondent No.2 (Mr Sunil Nanda) on 1 March 2011 by filing a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act). This petition was withdrawn by Respondent No.2 (Mr Sunil Nanda) on 5 August 2011 with liberty to adopt an appropriate remedy in the appropriate Court. The said order of withdrawal dated 5 August 2011 reads as under:-

“On the request of Learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to adopt appropriate remedy in appropriate Court.”

5. It is a common ground before us that after withdrawal of the aforesaid section 34 petition, the present Execution Application dated 9 September 2011 was lodged in this Court on 16 September 2011 seeking enforcement of the Award dated 4 December 2010 against all the Award Debtors.

6. While this Execution Application was pending, Respondent No.2, pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, on 8 December 2011, sought to challenge the said Award in the Court of Additional District Judge – 12, Central District, Delhi. The said challenge of Respondent No.2 was allowed by an order dated 13 September 2013 and the Award as far as Respondent No.2 was concerned, was set aside by the said Court inter alia on the ground that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference qua Respondent No.2. It is important to note that by the said order, the Additional District Judge-12, Central District, Delhi set aside the Award dated 4 December 2010 only qua Respondent No.2. In fact, in the said order, it is categorically stated that Respondent No.1 herein (claimant in the arbitration), is at liberty to take action for recovery of the loan amount from the Appellant and Respondent No.3 herein, as per law. It is therefore not in dispute that as far as the Appellant and Respondent No.3 are concerned, the impugned Award has not been set aside and has therefore attained finality. In fact, as stated earlier, there has been no challenge to the said Award either by the Appellant or by Respondent No.3.

7. In t