The court upheld the validity of an arbitral award despite timing challenges, emphasizing implied consent and the prohibition against pursuing parallel remedies.

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the judgment debtor under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 09.01.2025, passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Com.Ex.No.198/2024, whereby, IA No.1 filed by the decree-holder under Order 21 Rules 54 and 64 of CPC was allowed and IA Nos. 2 and 3 filed by the judgment debtor under Section 151 of CPC r/w. Section 29-A (1) and 29-A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘1996 Act’) and Order 21 Rule 26 of CPC were dismissed.

2. The decree-holder obtained an arbitral award in Claim Petition No.1/2021, pronounced on 09.09.2023 and released on 11.09.2023. The award was for injunction as well as for recovery of Rs.2,80,00,000/- (rupees two crores eighty lakhs only) with costs and 7% interest.

3. The decree-holder filed Ex.No.198/2024 before the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. In the said execution petition, decree- holder filed IA No.1 under Order 21 Rules 54 and 64 r/w. Section 151 of CPC for attachment and sale of the immovable properties of the judgment debtor. IA No.2 is filed by the judgment debtor under Section 151 of CPC r/w. Section 29-A(1) and 29-A(4) of the 1996 Act for dismissing the execution petition. The application filed by the decree-holder was allowed and the applications filed by the judgment debtor were dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtor is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor raised the following contentions:

(i) Firstly, as per Section 29-A(1) of the 1996 Act, the arbitral tribunal has to pass an award within one year from the date of completion of the pleadings. The pleadings has been completed on 10.02.2022. The award has been pronounced on 09.09.2023 and released on 11.09.2023, after completion of one year from the date of completion of the pleadings. In view of Section 29-A of the 1996 Act, since the award has been passed beyond one year, the award has to be terminated.

(ii) Secondly, under Section 23(4) of the 1996 Act, pleadings has to be completed within six months from the date the arbitrator or all the arbitrators, as the case may be, received notice, in writing, of their appointment, the six months is the outer limit. The twelve months period for passing the award will start from the day of filing of the defendant’s side statement of defence and counter-claim. The date of invoking of the arbitration was 29.09.2021.

The judgment debtor has completed his pleadings on 10.02.2022, within twelve months from the date the arbitrator was to pass an award. But the arbitrator passed the award on 09.11.2023, which is beyond one year.

(iii) Thirdly, under Section 23 of 1996 Act, there is no provision for filing rejoinder. Even if the court permits to file rejoinder to the parties, it cannot grant time beyond six months from the date of invoking of the arbitration clause.

(v) Fifthly, the Executing Court has considered the limitation of one year from the date, which is granted by the arbitrator, for filing the rejoinder, which is not permissible. The Executing Court has considered that the arbitrator has power to grant time to file rejoinder. Since the decree-holder has not chosen to file rejoinder on 10.08.2022, the said date is taken as the date when pleading has been completed. This finding of the Executing Court is contrary to the provisions of Sections 29-A and 23(4) of the 1996 Act. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree-holder raised the following contentions:

(i) Firstly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner itself is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and he cannot seek for a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the civil court on an application.

(ii) Secondly, against the award passed by the arbitral tribunal, the j