A.HARIPRASAD
INDIA CEMENTS CAPITAL LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
WILLIAM – Respondent
A. HARIPRASAD, J.
An award made in favour of the revision petitioner under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, "the Act") was sought to be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, "the Code"). At the instance of a third party to the arbitral proceedings, the court held that the award is a nullity and hence unenforceable. Insofar as the revision petitioner is concerned, that was a bolt from the blue. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner challenges the order on E.A.No.379 of 2013 in E.P.No.412 of 2011 in Arbitration O.P.No.10 of 2008 before the District Court, Ernakulam on the ground that invocation of Section 47 of the Code by the court below was erroneous and opposed to law. According to the revision petitioner, except by way of taking a recourse against the award under Section 34 of the Act, neither a party to the award nor a non party can take a short cut under Section 47 of the Code to challenge the virus of the award.
2. Heard Dr. George Abraham, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Sreelal N. Warrier, learned counsel for the first respondent.
3. Brief facts relevant for appreciating the rival conten
P. Rajan Sandhi v. Union of India (2010 (4) KLT 92)
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co.(P) Ltd. ((2010) 8 SCC 24)
Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (AIR 1954 SC 340)
Sunder Dass v. Ram Parkash (AIR 1977 SC 1201)
Rafique Bibi v. Sayed Waliuddin (AIR 2003 SC 3789)
Hira Lal Patni v. Sri Kali Nath (AIR 1962 SC 199)
Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal (AIR 1997 SC 856)
Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. (AIR 2011 SC 2507)
V. K. Kannadasan S/o. Karuppaswami VS Radhakrishnan S/o. Velappan - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 391: This case is referenced as one where "This Court had occasion to consider the issue," indicating it was previously considered or followed on the issue without any negative treatment indicators such as overruled, reversed, criticized, or questioned. No keywords suggest bad law.
Rafique Bibi (D) By Lrs. VS Sayed Waliuddin (D) By Lrs. - 2003 6 Supreme 300: States a general legal principle ("A decree suffering illegality or irregularity of procedure cannot be termed inexecutable by executing Court") with no treatment keywords like followed, distinguished, overruled, etc. It appears as a standalone proposition, suggesting neutral status.
Brahmdeo Chaudhary VS Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal - 1997 2 Supreme 660: Articulates a procedural rule regarding strangers to a decree under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC, with no treatment indicators (e.g., followed, overruled). Presented as authoritative without negative qualification, indicating neutral or positive standing.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.