Compliance with Sec. 31(5) of the Act of 1996 regarding the delivery of the arbitration award to each party is crucial in commencing the period of limitation for filing objections under Sec. 34(3) of the Act of 1996. The executing court has the jurisdiction to decide on compliance with Sec. 31(5) of the Act of 1996.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. I Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A Chowdhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, HDFC Bank Ltd.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dtd. 27/4/2022 passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge No.1, Kamrup (M) in Money Execution Case No.241/2016, whereby the objection filed by the petitioner was rejected. By way of the instant proceedings, the petitioner had also challenged the Money Execution Case No.241/2016.

3. The facts of the instant case is that the one Santanu Narayan Bora (since deceased) had taken a loan from the respondent Bank on 28/8/2012 amounting to Rs.9,50,000.00for purchase of a vehicle i.e., Eicher 11.10 HD RHDH bearing Registration No.AS-01-EC-0592. For the purpose of securing the said loan, late Santanu Narayan Bora had requested the petitioner to be the guarantor for the said loan. The petitioner being acquainted with late Santanu Narayan Bora agreed to such request and accordingly became the guarantor of the loan amount of Rs.9,50,000..00 Accordingly, an agreement was executed between late Santanu Narayan Bora and the respondent Bank on 28/8/2012, wherein the petitioner stood as a guarantor.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner lost contact with late Santanu Narayan Bora and was completely unaware about any dealings with late Santanu Narayan Bora and the respondent Bank. In the year 2018, the petitioner received a notice dtd. 6/11/2017 issued by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.4, FTC Kamrup Metro, Guwahati in Money Execution Case No.241/2016, whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the said Court. The petitioner on receipt of the said notice entered appearance in the said Money Execution Case. Upon entering appearance in the said case, the petitioner alleges that for the first time he came to learn about the fact that late Santanu Narayan Bora had defaulted in making payment of the loan in respect to which the petitioner was the guarantor. The petitioner also came to learn for the first time that upon such default made by late Santanu Narayan Bora, the respondent Bank had appointed an arbitrator and an arbitral award dtd. 23/5/2012 was passed, which directed payment of a sum of Rs.6,98,325.64 to the Respondent Bank jointly and severely by the petitioner and the late Santanu Narayan Bora. The petitioner thereafter tried to contact late Santanu Narayan Bora however, without any success. The petitioner thereafter upon further enquiry came to learn that the vehicle in question was infact stolen on 25/3/2014 and accordingly, an FIR was also lodged in West Police Station, Dimapur on 25/3/2014.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 47 read with Order XXI Rule 26 of the CPC in Money Execution Case No.241/2006. In the said objection filed on 31/6/2018, it was the specific case of the petitioner that no copy of the award as is mandatorily required under Sec. 31 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, "the Act of 1996") was served upon the petitioner for which the petitioner was not in a position to file an application under sec. 34 for setting aside the award. It was the further contention of the petitioner that the award could be put to execution and/or enforced only after the lapse of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the said award in terms with Sec. 31 (5) of the Act of 1996 and in the instant case as the said award was not furnished to the petitioner, the filing of the application under Sec. 36 of the Act of 1996 read with Order XXI by the respondent was premature and not maintainable. On the basis thereof, the petitioner sought for rejection of the application filed by the respondent under Order XXI on being defective and premature in nature.

6. To the said objection-cum-application filed by