****

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced: Full

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal in Execution Petition bearing No.441 of 2020, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner to the execution petition have been dismissed, with a further prayer seeking dismissal of the aforesaid execution having been rendered inexecutable since the award sought to be executed has been passed by an incompetent authority and without jurisdiction.

2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition seeking to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is that the award was passed on 09.01.2020 vide Annexure P-1 by the learned Sole Arbitrator on the basis of a reference made to the learned Sole Arbitrator for arbitration by the Chairman, Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council-cum-Director, Industries and Commerce, Haryana under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MSMED Act, 2006’). The aforesaid award was passed after being contested by the petitioner-judgment debtor, who had fully participated in the arbitral proceedings.

3. After the award was passed on 09.01.2020, the petitioner-judgment debtor filed objections under Sections 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 before the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. In the meantime, execution was also filed by the respondent-decree holder before the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arbitration Act, 1996”) seeking execution of the aforesaid award for the claim of a total amount of Rs.84,21,272/- along with interest to which the petitioner had filed its objections on 18.09.2023 vide Annexure P-3. In this way, both the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 as well as the execution proceedings proceeded simultaneously.

4. As per the learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder, although the petitioner had filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 but he did not deposit 75% of the awarded amount as mandated under Section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 and therefore, the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 were adjourned from time to time and ultimately, on 25.07.2025, the petitioner-judgment debtor withdrew the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 vide Annexure P-5 by citing a technical defect pertaining to Notification issued by the Haryana Government dated 20.04.2007 and 09.11.2021.

5. After three days from the said withdrawal of the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 i.e. on 28.07.2025, since the execution under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 was also pending and was being proceeded, the learned Additional District Judge by way of the impugned order dismissed the objections to the execution petition filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor and in this way, the said order has been now assailed by the petitioner-judgment debtor by way of filing the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that even if the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 were withdrawn by the petitioner, still the objections of the petitioner in the execution petition were required to be allowed in view of the fact that the award sought to be executed itself was inexecutable having been passed by an incompetent authority and without jurisdiction. In this regard, he submitted that since the award itself was without jurisdiction not being passed by a competent authority, the s