SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Chh) 470

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.
Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Narmada Chandrakar S/o Shri Siddha Ram Chandrakar - Respondent
WP (227) No.626 of 2016
Decided On : 01-12-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S.C. Verma, Advocate.

Headnote:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 35 and 36 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 151 - Effect of award - Agreement of – Finality of arbitral Award – Enforcement of - Where no contrary intention is expressed and where such a provision is applicable, every arbitration agreement is deemed to contain a provision that award is to be final and binding on parties and any persons claiming under them respectively - As between parties to arbitration agreement, award gives rise to an estoppel inter parties with regard to matters decided therein analogous to that created by judgment in an action in personam; thus, if award was in respect of a breach of a contract, it may bar further proceedings even though fresh damage has flowed from breach - Held, In the light of law laid down & noticed herein above, if facts of present case are examined, it is quite vivid that Executing Court in instant case has travelled beyond the award as the award passed has not been challenged by respondents by filing an application under Section 34 of AC Act and award passed by the arbitrator has become final by virtue of provision contained in Section 35 of AC Act & in absence of challenge, only option available to the Executing Court was to execute the award as it is in accordance with law - Executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside award and further committed illegality in rejecting application under Section 151 of the CPC - Accordingly, order impugned is set aside. Execution application filed by petitioner is restored to file of said Court for execution of award in accordance with law - Writ petition partly allowed.

ORDER :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. The Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Ed., Vol.2, para 611 states about finality attached to award as under:-

"The effect of the award is such as the agreement of reference expressly or by implication prescribes. Where no contrary intention is expressed and where such a provision is applicable, every arbitration agreement is deemed to contain a provision that the award is to be final and binding on the parties and any persons claiming under them respectively.

"As between the parties to the arbitration agreement, the award gives rise to an estoppel inter parties with regard to the matters decided therein analogous to that created by the judgment in an action in personam; thus, if the award was in respect of a breach of a contract, it may bar further proceedings even though fresh damage has flowed from the breach. Once an award has determined the construction of contract, the parties are bound by that construction even though a new source of difference raising the question occurs. Since it is the duty of a party to bring forward his whole case where the reference is of all matters in difference, he will, generally speaking, lose his right of action in respect of any matter of difference not brought to the arbitrator's attention to the same extent as if it had been included in the matters actually determined.

"The publication of the award thus extinguished any right of action in respect of the former matters in difference but gives rise to a new cause of action based on the agreement between the parties to perform the award which is implied in every arbitration agreement.

"An award which deals with and decides a claim under a contract is a bar to an action on the contract in respect of that claim, but if the award does not deal with the claim but merely deals negatively with a question of the arbitrator's jurisdiction, then the award is not a bar to the action."

2. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram, AIR 1963 SC 1685 clearly held that the civil court cannot exercise apparent power over the decision of the arbitrator wrong or right irrespective and award of the arbitrator is final and conclusive unless a contra intention is disclosed by the agreement itself and succinctly held as under:-

"...........The award of the arbitrator is ordinarily final and conclusive, unless a contrary intention is disclosed by the agreement. The award is the decision of a domestic tribunal chosen by the parties, and the Civil Courts which are entrusted with the power to facilities arbitration and to effectuate the awards cannot exercise appellate powers over the decision. Wrong or right the decision is binding if it be reached fairly after giving adequate opportunity to the parties to place their grievances in the manner provided by the arbitration agreement.......".

3. The above-stated proposition of law held in A.L. Rallia Ram (supra) has been followed in the matter of Ispat Engineering & Foundry Works, B.S. City, Bokaro v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., B.S. City Bokaro, (2001) 6 SCC 347.

4. The above-stated statement of law aptly as well as squarely applies to the following facts of the present case.

5. Invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company Limited (non-banking financial institution) has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 1.8.2016 passed by the District Judge, Bemetara in unregistered Execution Case by which the petitioner's application filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as AC Act) has been rejected holding that the award passed by the Arbitrator is against the public policy which cannot be executed and thereby closed the proceeding of award.

6. The essential facts requisite to consider the plea raised at the Bar are as under:-

(i) The Sole Arbitrator passed an award on 9.9.2015 in arbitration matter between the
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top