Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R. Ravi, J.
Calicut City Service Co-Operative – Petitioner
Versus
Johnson.C.K. – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 324 of 2025, OP(C) NO. 196 of 2025, OP(C) NO. 290 of 2025, OP(C) NO. 292 of 2025, OP(C) NO. 302 of 2025
Decided On : 16-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitions challenge order deeming awards non-executable. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court upholds arbitration despite jurisdictional claims. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT :
T.R. Ravi, J.
The Original Petitions have been filed challenging orders dated 13.08.2024 (Ext.P6 in O.P.(C)Nos.324/2025, 290/2025 & 302/2025 and Ext.P7 in O.P.(C)Nos.196/2025 & 292/2025) of the 1st Additional Sub Judge, Kozhikode, whereby the applications filed by the Judgment Debtors stating that the award has become non-est has been accepted by the court, and it has been held that the award is not executable.
2. The respondents herein had availed of loans from the petitioner. When there was default, proceedings were initiated before the Arbitrator, which culminated in the awards. The respondents participated in the proceedings as can be seen from the award. After having participated in the petition for execution of the award before the Sub Court, Kozhikode, the respondents took a stand that, since the petitioner had granted the loans outside its area of operation, the award itself was liable to be treated as non- est. The court below relied on information furnished under the Right to Information Act, which stated that the petitioner Bank had no jurisdiction beyond Kozhikode Corporation/ Taluk. It is stated that the Judgment Debtors property was situated in Thamarassery Taluk and since the loans were granted beyond the jurisdictional limit, it cannot be realised. It is also found that the memberships given to the Judgment Debtors are against law.
3. The reasoning of the court below cannot be accepted. The loans were granted on the basis of an agreement between the parties and it is towards enforcement of the said agreement that the arbitration proceedings have also taken place. Certain irregularities in granting a loan to a person who was outside the area of operation will not by itself negate the contract between the parties. In the execution proceedings, the court was not called upon to decide on whether the membership granted to the Judgment Debtor was bad in law. The respondents having participated in the arbitration proceedings and given a statement cannot be allowed to challenge the proceedings at the stage of execution.
In the result, these Original Petitions are allowed. Orders dated 13.08.2024 of the 1st Additional Sub Judge, Kozhikode are set aside. The court below is directed to take back the execution petitions on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
Execution of arbitration awards is permissible even if loans were issued outside of the bank's operational jurisdiction, provided parties participated in proceedings.
Participation in arbitration bars challenging award validity at execution stage despite jurisdictional irregularities.
Procedural irregularities do not invalidate an arbitration award if the parties engaged in the process and the jurisdictional challenge is unfounded.
Participation in arbitration proceedings precludes respondents from contesting the execution based on alleged jurisdictional issues.
The executing Court cannot disregard an arbitral award as a nullity unless it has been properly challenged under the Arbitration Act, as failure to do so renders the award final and binding.
The main legal point established is that the Commercial Court has jurisdiction to entertain execution proceedings arising from an award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and the award holde....
Execution petitions for awards must be filed in the jurisdiction where the property is located, as enforced under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Civil Procedure Code.
The seat of arbitration determines jurisdiction for enforcement of awards, allowing execution within that jurisdiction despite asset relocations, emphasizing the need for transparency in asset disclo....
Territorial jurisdiction for enforcement of arbitral award is determined by the location of the award debtor's assets. Misplaced execution applications may be dismissed with liberty to approach the a....
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
