The execution of an arbitral award must adhere to established legal procedures, and any order lacking jurisdiction is considered void.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record.

2. The short submission which has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that arbitral award is treated as a deemed decree of the Civil Court for the purposes of enforcement and execution under section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and therefore, the proceedings are thereafter governed by Order XXI of CPC, wherein, Rule 17 provides the procedure on receiving the application for execution, whereby, the Court is under statutory mandate to execute the decree. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order dated 9th May, 2024 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (Bank Cases) Srinagar (Designated Commercial Court) is perfunctory and not tenable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside in the light of the fact that appropriate remedy has not been availed by the respondent under section 34 of the Arbitration & Cancellation Act, 1996, wherein the procedure for setting aside arbitral award is laid down.

3. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to section 34 of the Arbitration and Cancellation Act, 1996, wherein the procedure for setting aside the arbitral award is laid down and among other grounds the reason that the party against whom the award has been passed was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator provided under section 34 (2) (a) (iii) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is to be agitated by the respondent and prove such claim in the proceedings under section 34 of the Act for successfully setting aside the arbitral award.

4. Thus, according to learned counsel, order impugned suffers from glaring error of law and jurisdiction and the same being illegal to the extent of being non-est in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that there is no power or authority vested in the Executing Court to direct the petitioner –Bank to produce any record pertaining to the arbitral proceedings at the very inception and thus the order impugned is without jurisdiction, void ab inito and non-est in the eyes of law. He further submits that the execution proceedings initiated by the petitioner bank under section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for enforcement of Arbitral Award dated 3rd July, 2023 deserves to be proceeded as per the established procedure under law and no one can be allowed to suffer the consequences of an action/order which is non-est in law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the orders dated 26th June, 2024, passed by this Court in CM (M) 257/2024 and CM (M) 258/2024 and prays that the same order be passed in the instant petition as well.

5. With a view to maintain parity, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the same order as has been passed by the Coordinate Bench in above said petitions.

6. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within a period of four weeks. Requisite steps for service within one week.

7. List on 9th October, 2024, along with CM (M) 257/2024 and CM (M) 258/2024.

8. In the meantime, subject to objections from the other side and till next date of hearing before the Bench, order impugned dated 9th May, 2024 passed by the designated commercial Court, qua the petitioners shall remain stayed.

9. Alteration/vacation/modification on motion.