Objections under Section 47 of the CPC are not maintainable against arbitral awards under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, as arbitral awards are not actual decrees.

JUDGMENT :

Shekhar B. Saraf, J.

The instant writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner No. 1') against the order dated May 17, 2022 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bijnor. A further challenge has been laid to the orders dated July 21, 2022 and August 2, 2022 passed by the Commercial Court, Moradabad.

FACTS

2. I have laid down the factual matrix leading to the instant appeal below:

a. Petitioner No. 1 and Shri Raj Veer Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent') entered into a contract for construction of cross drainage, siphon at Km 5.355 of main canal under Madhya Ganga Canal Phase-II Project in District Bijnor.

b. Disputes arose between the parties in terms of the aforesaid contract. Accordingly, in term of the Clause 42 and 43 of the contract between the parties, these disputes were referred to arbitration.

c. Shri A.K. Gupta, Sole Arbitrator passed the arbitral award on December 12, 2013. Against the said arbitral award, the Petitioner No. 1 preferred an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the District Judge, Bijnor. The said application was rejected vide order dated April 9, 2014.

d. The Petitioner No. 1 filed a first appeal before this Court against the order of the District Judge, Bijnor. However, the said first appeal was dismissed by this Court vide order dated December 22, 2016. A Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was also preferred by the Petitioner No. 1 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on the ground of delay vide order dated November 2, 2018. Review petition filed by the Petitioner No. 1 against the order dated November 2, 2018 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on January 15, 2019.

e. Thereafter, an execution application was filed in the year 2019 by the Respondent under Section 36 of the Act. On May 17, 2022, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor passed an order in the said execution application directing the State Bank of India, Main Branch Nazeebabad, Bijnor to cease the bank account of Executive Engineer, Madhya Ganga Canal Construction Division - 7 Bijnor and not to permit withdrawal from the said account.

f. Subsequently, the execution application filed by the Respondent was transferred to Commercial Court, Moradabad. The Commercial Court, Moradabad vide its order dated July 21, 2022 directed the Petitioner No. 1 to ensure the payment of the awarded amount alongwith interest on or before August 10, 2022.

g. Petitioner No. 1 preferred an objection in under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC, 1908') in the year 2022 before the Commercial Court, Moradabad which was rejected vide order dated August 2, 2022.

h. Aggrieved by the order dated May 17, 2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor and the orders dated July 21, 2022, and August 2, 2022 passed by the Commercial Court, Moradabad, the Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

3. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioners has made the following submissions on behalf of the Petitioners:

i. The Chief Engineer vide letter dated July 26, 2011 had forward the names of three superintending engineers who were not associated with the work under the contract to the Respondent for choosing anyone of them to be appointed as the sole arbitrator. However, the Respondent vide its letters dated August 4, 2011, and August 8, 2011 informed the Petitioner No. 1 that it has chosen the name of the Shri A.K. Singh to be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator from its own list which was sent by it to the Petitioner No. 1 on July 23, 2011.

ii. The said action of the Respondent of nominating th