2010 Supreme(All) 3375

[2011(2) ADJ 4 (NOC)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : KRISHNA MURARI, J.
M/s. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. ....Applicant/Revisionist
Versus
M/s. MAHARAJI EDUCATIONAL TRUST ....Respondent
(Civil Revision No. 213 of 2010, decided on 24th September, 2010)

Headnote:Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Sections 36, 34, 12, 13, 35, 15—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Sections 47, 151—Arbitration Act, 1940—Section 30—Arbitral award—Enforcement of—Validity of—Question whether validity of arbitral award can be challenged—In proceedings for its enforcement under 36 of Act—District Judge rejected objection filed by applicant under Section 47 of Code—In proceeding for execution of award—On ground that they are barred by res-judicata—In as much as some objections filed under Section 34 of Act has already been dismissed as barred by limitation—Section 34 of Act prescribes ground under which arbitral award can be challenged—If no application is made under Section 34 within prescribed period of limitation—Or application is refused award becomes final under Section 35 of Act—And enforceable in terms of Section 36—Section 34 enumerates specific grounds on which application for setting aside of award can be made—Arbitral award can be executed in the same manner as if it were a decree of Court—Section 47 of Code cannot be attracted despite words "in the same manner as if were a decree of Court" used in Section 36 of Act—When award is sought to be executed thereunder—In present case applicant invoking Section 34 filed their objection—Challenging validity of award—Which were dismissed as barred by limitation—Judgment came to be affirmed by Apex Court—On dismissal of SLP—Apex Court did not condone delay—Once stage of Section 34 is over—Section 47 of Code cannot be invoked—Applicant have no right to challenge enforceability of award by taking recourse to Section 47 of Code.