Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., D.N.RAY
Jitendra Dashrathbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Animesh Bansilal Chokshi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sunita Agarwal, C.J., D.N.Ray, J.
1. The petitioner herein seeks to invoke the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Execution Petition No.84 of 2024.
2. The only ground of challenge to the said order pressed before us, is that the execution case filed on 06.12.2024 was barred by limitation. It was argued that the execution petition preferred by the respondent for enforcement of the arbitral award dated 17.01.2009 is time barred under Article 136 of the Limitation Act’ 1963, which prescribed the period of limitation of 12 years for execution / enforcement of the decree / arbitral award.
3. The contention is that the Executing court has relied upon an overruled judgment of National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Pressteel & Fabrications (P) Ltd., [(2004) 1 SCC 540], and has erroneously applied the principle of “automatic stay of award” to suspend the period of limitation from the date of award, i.e. from 17.01.2009 to the date of amendment of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act’ 1996, i.e. 23.10.2015.
4.
The Amendment to Section 36 clarifies there is no automatic stay of arbitral awards upon filing a Section 34 application, affecting the calculation of limitation periods for enforcement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the unamended Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not provide for automatic stay of the award pending the application unde....
Scope to stay execution proceeding by Executing Court is limited – It is only an interim arrangement enabling the party to obtain stay order from appropriate Court, including Appellate Court.
An unconditional stay of an arbitral award is impermissible unless specific statutory conditions under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act are fulfilled.
Execution of an arbitral award requires compliance with the 90-day limitation under Section 34; execution petitions filed before this period are impermissible.
The limitation period for setting aside an arbitral award starts from the disposal of a request under Section 33, excluding the time taken for communication of that decision.
The judgment established that uncertainty in the law regarding the limitation for executing foreign arbitral awards can be a ground for condoning the delay in filing execution petitions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for interim relief is maintainable, and the court has the autho....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
