SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 25219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S., J
KASMISONS BUILDERS PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
S.S.ASHRAF – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 251 OF 2026|IA 1/2024|OP(ARBN) NO.67 OF 2024|EP No.25/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.HARISH R. MENON, SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR, SMT.K.N.ABHA, SRI.A.G.PRASANTH, SMT.VARSHA SAHAJAN, SMT.MARY HEDWIG BABY, SMT.FATHIMA HASHIM, SMT.ANNU FRANCIS
For the Respondents: SMT.M.A.ZOHRA, SHRI.BIMAL K.NATH, SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY, SHRI.AKBAR ZAHEER A.N., SHRI.P.D.SUBRAMANIAN NAMPOOTHIRI, SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN R., SHRI.SIDHARTH BIMAL, SMT.GOWRI V. NAIR

Execution of arbitral award impermissible until pending Section 34 challenge attains finality.

Headnote:The petitioner challenges a sale notice issued in execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 69 CPC, seeking stay pending disposal of a Section 34 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2016, which contests an arbitral award. Facts involve a pending challenge to the award alleging irregularities, while beneficiaries proceed with execution. The court finds execution impermissible until the Section 34 petition attains finality. Issues framed include maintainability of the Section 34 petition due to delay and entitlement to interim stay. The ratio decidendi holds that execution of an arbitral award must await finality of a pending Section 34 challenge, directing priority hearing on limitation and stay. The original petition is disposed with directions to the Commercial Court to hear the Section 34 petition on 19.05.2026, assess entertainability, consider interim stay if viable, complete within three weeks, and defer execution proceedings accordingly.

Table of Content
1. challenges to sale notice pending arbitration challenge. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments on irregularities, delay, maintainability. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. execution stayed until section 34 finality; directions issued. (Para 6)

J U D G M E N T

This original petition is filed with the following reliefs:-

(i) To set aside Ext.P10 Sale Notice issued in EP No.25/2024 on the file of 7th Additional District Court (Fast Track 1), Ernakulam since the sale notice is in violation of the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 69 of CPC.

(ii) To keep in abeyance all further proceedings in EP No.25/2024 on the file of 7th Additional District Court (Fast Track 1), Ernakulam, till the disposal of IA No.1/2024 in OP (Arbitration) No.67/2024 on the file of Second Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam.

(iii) To direct the Second Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam to dispose of IA No. 1/2024 in OP (Arbitration) No.67/2024 in accordance with law within a time frame to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

(iv) pass such orders as deemed fit by this Honourable Court on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. It is admitted across the Bar that an application, O.P.(Arbitration) No.67/2024, challenging an Award passed in an arbitration proceeding is pending before the Commercial Court, Ernakulam, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Amendment), 2016 (for short ‘the Act’) along with an I.A No.1/2024. In the meantime, the beneficiaries of the Award have filed E.P No.25/2024 on the files of VIIth Additional District Court (Fast Track-I), Ernakulam, for execution of the Award.

3. Heard Shri.Harish R. Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. M.A. Zohra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 12 and Shri.Bimal K. Nath, the learned counsel appearing for the 13th respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are several irregularities alleged in the passing of the Award in the petition constituted under Section 34 of the Act. Before considering the respective merits of the said application, the respondents are proceeding to execute the Award.

5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent 1 to 12 pointed out that O.P.(Arbitration) No.67/2024 itself is not maintainable, since it is filed beyond the statutory period under the Act. It is further pointed out that the application under Section 34 of the Act itself is filed 11 months after filing of the execution petition.

6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that an application under Section 34 of the Act is pending. It is impermissible for the respondents to proceed with the execution before original petition attains finality. 7. Accordingly this original petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(a) The Commercial Court, Ernakulam, is directed to advance the hearing of O.P. (Arbitration) No.67/2024 to 19.05.2026.

(b) The Commercial Court shall first consider as to whether the O.P.(Arbitration) No.67/2024 is filed within time and if it is entertainable or not.

(c) On finding that O.P.(Arbitration) No.67/2024 is entertainable, the Commercial Court, Ernakulam, shall further consider the application for interim stay of the Award.

(d) The Commercial Court, Ernakulam, shall endevour to complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of three weeks from 19.05.2026.

(e) Further proceedings for execution of the Award in E.P No.25/2024 on the files of VIIth Additional District Court (Fast Track-I), Ernakulam, shall stand deferred till a decision is taken as directed by this Court. (f) The parties shall appear without fail on 19.05.2026 before the Commercial Court, Ernakulam, In the aforesaid observations, this original petition is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top