Objections to an award on the ground of illegal procurement or lack of jurisdiction cannot be raised under Section 47 CPC but should be raised under the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Act.

Ms. Usha Mehra, J.

( 1 ) LET the application be numbered. In order to appreciate the objections raised against the decree passed by this Court dated 3rd August,1993, the facts leading to the passing of the decree were that respondent-Union of India appointed Shri N. H. Chandwani as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes/claims between the parties arisen from Agreement No. 6/ee/cd-IV/ 81-82relatingto450type c quartersatlodiroadgroup-IV. The said arbitrator made and published his award on 5th December,1990. The Union of India in Suit No. 2106/91 filed an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act ( hereinafter called the act ) seeking direction to the said arbitrator to file his award. Similarly, petitioner filed a suit bearing No. 305/91 under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act seeking same directions.

( 2 ). Pursuance to the direction given in Suit No. 305a/91, the arbitrator filed his award along with the proceedings. Notice of filing of the award was issued to both the parties. Mr. Sailesh Kapur, Advocate accepted notice on behalf of the petitioner on 22nd September,1992. The Union of India, however, was served with notice of filing of the award on 9th November, 1992. One Mr. Virsen, U. D. C. of the office of Executive Engineer (Construction) Division No. 4, C. P. W. D. appeared on 5th January,1993 and sought time which was granted. The matter was thus listed on 8th February,1993. Again the case was adjourned to 31st March, 1993 on which date Mr. Rajiv Trivedi, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Union of India. The matter was re notified for 18th May, 1993 on which date Mr. Trivedi again appeared, but till then no objections to the award were filed. This all find mention in the proceeding recorded by the Deputy Registrar, dated 18th May,1993. As objections to the award had not been filed within the stipulated period of limitation, therefore, the matter was listed before Court on 3rd August,1993 for making the award rule of the Court. On 3rd August,1993, Ms. Sudha Srivastava, appeard for the Union of India. On that date the award was made rule of the Court and the decree in terms of the award was ordered to be prepared.

( 3 ). Petitioner sought execution of the said decree. It is against this execution, that objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) have been filed, inter alia, on the ground that the award was illegally procured and that the Arbitrator after having resigned had no authority to render the award. Such an award was without jurisdiction.

( 4 ). I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Mr. Harish Malhotra, appearing for petitioner contended that by invoking the provisions of Section 47, CPC, the judgement - debtor has tried to circumvent the provisions of the Arbitration Act. If the arbitrator had rendered the award without jurisdiction or the petitioner procured the award illegally, the recourse open to the judgment - debtor was to file objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. Having failed to file those objections within the statutory period, the judgment - debtor cannot be allowed to raise these very objections under the garb of Section 47. This would amount to enabling the respondent to file objections after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation to file the objections. This is not the scope of Section 47, CPC. I find force in these submissions of Mr. Malhotra. The provisions of Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code. which are reproduced as under, do not envisage that objections to the award can be filed on the ground that said award was illegally procured or was rendered by the Arbitrator who had no jurisdiction:-

SECTION 47: 47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree - (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document