Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 138
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S. Manu, J.
Manappuram Asset Finance Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Abdul Saleem A.B – Respondent
AR Nos.16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of 2026
Decided On : 06-02-2026
For the Petitioner: Shri.C.K.Sreejith, Smt.Namitha Jyothish, Shri.Shaji Katayaprath, Shri.Sujith K. Mohanan, Smt.Kozhipurath Praseetha Gopalakrishnan
Arbitration awards declared unenforceable lose legal validity, requiring fresh requests for new arbitration proceedings, as stated in Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 21 - Arbitration awards - Execution of arbitration awards dismissed by Execution Courts due to unilateral appointment of arbitrators - Court held that awards declared unenforceable are akin to being set aside, necessitating fresh request for arbitral proceedings - Petitioners' requests were premature as no fresh notices were issued following dismissal. (Paras 1, 3, 4)
(B) Legal Validity of Arbitration Awards - A declared unenforceable award loses its legal sanctity and force in law, requiring parties to restart arbitration procedures. (Paras 2, 3)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought execution of arbitration awards, but execution was dismissed on grounds of the awards being unenforceable due to unilateral appointment of arbitrators.
Findings of Court:
Court affirmed that once an arbitration award is ruled unenforceable, a fresh request for arbitration must be made, paralleling the notion of a set aside award.
Issues: Whether execution courts can dismiss petitions based on the validity of arbitration awards, and the procedural requirements post such a dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that arbitration awards deemed unenforceable are treated as null, requiring re-initiation of arbitration procedures via fresh notices as required by statutory provisions.
Result: Arbitration Requests disposed of as premature.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual circumstances of multiple arbitration requests. (Para 1) |
| 2. legal impact of unenforceable arbitration awards. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. requirement for fresh notices upon dismissal. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's authority for further recourse. (Para 5) |
ORDER :
S. Manu, J.
In all these Arbitration Requests, the factual circumstances are identical. All the loan agreements, in all these cases, contain an arbitration clause. Invoking the arbitration clauses, arbitral proceedings were initiated. Awards were passed by the Arbitrators. The petitioners in all these cases sought execution of the award by approaching the Civil Courts concerned. Execution Courts dismissed the Execution Petitions holding that the awards were unenforceable. The rationale for this was that the appointment of arbitrators in all these cases was unilateral. The declarations made by the Execution Courts in all these cases is virtually to the effect that the awards were non est in the eye of law.
2. In M/s.Agro Indus Credits Limited v. Mangalan [ 2026(1) KLT 1 ] this Court held that once an arbitration award is set aside or declared as nullity, to initiate fresh arbitral proceedings, it is indispensable to make a fresh request as contemplated under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 .
3. Once the arbitral award is declared as unenforceable/nullity in the eye of law by a competent court, even during execution proceedings, the impact of such a finding is akin to that of setting aside an award. The outcome remains the same. The award loses its legal sanctity, becomes inoperative and loses all its force. Under such circumstances, also, declaration of law in M/s.Agro Indus Credits Limited would squarely apply. Therefore, if the execution court finds that an arbitral award is unenforceable and invalid for any reason, in order to initiate fresh arbitral proceedings, it is essential to make a fresh request/issue fresh notice as contemplated under Section 21 of the Act, 1996.
4. In all these cases, after dismissal of the Execution Petitions, no fresh notices were issued to the respondents. Therefore, these Arbitration Requests are premature. Accordingly, they are closed.
5. However, it will be open to the petitioners to issue fresh notice to the respondents and seek recourse to this Court again, if required.
Arbitration Requests are disposed of as above.
