An executing court cannot question the finality of an arbitral award once it has become binding under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

1. The HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND (4th Ed., Vol.2, para 611)1 states about finality attached to award as under: -
'The effect of the award is such as the agreement of reference expressly or by implication prescribes. Where no contrary intention is expressed and where such a provision is applicable, every arbitration agreement is deemed to contain a provision that the award is to be final and binding on the parties and any persons claiming under them respectively.
'As between the parties to the arbitration agreement, the award gives rise to an estoppel inter parties with regard to the matters decided therein analogous to that created by the judgment in an action in personam; thus, if the award was in respect of a breach of a contract, it may bar further proceedings even though fresh damage has flowed from the breach. Once an award has determined the construction of contract, the parties are bound by that construction even though a new source of difference raising the question occurs. Since it is the duty of a party to bring forward his whole case where the reference is of all matters in difference, he will, generally speaking, lose his right of action in respect of any matter of difference not brought to the arbitrator's attention to the same extent as if it had been included in the matters actually determined.
'The publication of the award thus extinguished any right of action in respect of the former matters in difference but gives rise to a new cause of action based on the agreement between the parties to perform the award which is implied in every arbitration agreement.
'An award which deals with and decides a claim under a contract is a bar to an action on the contract in respect of that claim, but if the award does not deal with the claim but merely deals negatively with a question of the arbitrator's jurisdiction, then the award is not a bar to the action.'

2. The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. A.L. Rallia Ram ( AIR 1963 SC 1685 ) clearly held that the civil court cannot exercise apparent power over the decision of the arbitrator wrong or right irrespective and award of the arbitrator is final and conclusive unless a contra intention is disclosed by the agreement itself and succinctly held as under: -
'.........The award of the arbitrator is ordinarily final and conclusive, unless a contrary intention is disclosed by the agreement. The award is the decision of a domestic tribunal chosen by the parties, and the Civil Courts which are entrusted with the power to facilities arbitration and to effectuate the awards cannot exercise appellate powers over the decision. Wrong or right the decision is binding if it be reached fairly after giving adequate opportunity to the parties to place their grievances in the manner provided by the arbitration agreement.......'.

3. The above - stated proposition of law held in A.L. Rallia Ram (supra) has been followed in the matter of Ispat Engineering & Foundry Works, B.S. City, Bokaro vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., B.S. City Bokaro (2001 (6) SCC 347 : (AIR 2001 SC 2516)).

4. The above - stated statement of law aptly as well as squarely applies to the following facts of the present case.

5. Invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner - Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company Limited (non - banking financial institution) has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 1.8.2016 passed by the District Judge, Bemetara in unregistered Execution Case by which the petitioner's application filed under S.36 of the Arbitr