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.

ORDER :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the separate orders passed in E.P.Nos. 86 to 89 of 2018, dated 08.11.2018 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

2. Since the issues involved in all the revisions are one and the same, this Court deems it fit to pass common order.

3. The respondents in all the revision petitions have borrowed loans to purchase vehicles and entered into loan transactions with the petitioner finance company. The respondents-borrowers have executed hypothecation agreements as well as arbitration agreements to refer the matters for arbitration.

4. It is not in dispute that the borrowers have committed default and hence, their vehicles were seized and sold by the finance company and amounts were appropriated towards their loan amount and for remaining amount, arbitrations were held at Chennai and since the respondents/borrowers remained ex-parte, arbitration awards came to be passed on 19.12.2014. The petitioner finance company, being the decree holder has then laid the execution petitions in E.P.Nos.86 to 89 of 2018 for executing the awards, dated 19.12.2014 before the learned Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari District. Even in the impugned orders, the learned District Judge has observed that the respondents/judgment debtors did not raise any objections seriously. But, the learned District Judge by holding that the awards obtained by the decree holder are nullity, as the same are against public policy and the vehicles were seized without following the judicial guidelines of the High Court in the case of Cholamandalam Dbs Finance Ltd vs Sudheesh Kumar reported in 2010 (1) CTC 481 , dismissed the execution petitions. Aggrieved by the orders of dismissal, the present revisions came to be filed.

5. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the judgment debtors have not challenged the awards under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and as such, the awards have attained finality. It is also pertinent to note that the judgment debtors have not raised any specific objections in the execution proceedings. As already pointed out, the learned District Judge himself has observed that they did not raise any objections seriously. But, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the learned District Judge by himself has taken some objections and by referring some decisions, has come to the decision that the awards are nullity.

6. According to the learned District Judge, the petitioner and the respondents are residing at Madurai and Kanyakumari respectively; that the cause of action had taken place at Kanyakumari, but the place of arbitration fixed at Chennai, is very very far away place to the judgment debtors, who are poor individuals and small borrowers and by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rattan Chand Hira Chand Vs. Askar Nawaz Jung (dead) by LRs., reported in 1991 SCC (3) 67 and by observing that the contract in choosing a place which is more than 500 km away is against public policy and the Arbitrator did not give equal opportunity to the judgment debtors and the judgment debtors were sufficiently prevented from attending the arbitration proceedings, has come to the decision that the awards are against public policy and as such, are nullity.

7. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattan Chand