THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.33264 of 2023 Mr. D. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging an Arbitral Award dated 12.10.2021. The Writ Petition was filed on

01.12.2023.

2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a declaration that the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent No.3 in E.P.Nos.250/2022 and 47/2023 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Wanaparthy, for enforcement of the impugned Award is illegal. The petitioners have also sought a declaration that the execution proceedings filed by the respondent No.3 for enforcement of the Award is illegal and contrary to law. The petitioners have not prayed for any stay of the execution proceedings filed by the respondent No.3.

3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

4. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were not given notice or opportunity to conduct the arbitration proceedings and that the petitioners came to know of the Award only in 2022 from the execution proceedings.

5. We have perused the pleadings in the Writ Petition. Paragraphs 4 and 5 thereof do not mention any date on which the petitioners came to know of the impugned Award save and except a general statement that the petitioners’ knowledge of the Award was only after filing of the execution petitions.

6. It is settled law that The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) is a complete code where an aggrieved person can challenge the Award under section 34 of the 1996 Act. Section 34(2)(a)(iii) provides a party may take the ground of absence of proper notice of the appointment of an Arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his/her case. The petitioners have not been able to show any ground or plead any reason for not filing an application for setting aside of the Award under section 34.

7. It is further relevant that section 34(3) of the 1996 Act gives an Award-debtor three months and thirty days from the date of receiving the Award to apply for setting aside of the Award. Hence, the petitioners could very well have challenged the Award within the timeframe provided under section 34(3) by showing the date of receipt of the impugned Award. The petitioners have not relied on any decision for challenging the Award by invoking the extraordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. V. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd.1 reinforces the legal position with regard to maintainability of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for challenging an arbitral Award and limits interference only where the Award is completely perverse on the face of it. The Writ Petition does not

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 22

take any of these grounds save and except that the petitioners were not put to notice or knowledge of the arbitral Award. There is also no explanation as to why the Writ Petition was filed two years after the Award which is dated 12.10.2021.

9. We accordingly find no merit in the Writ Petition. W.P.No.33264 of 2023, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J _____________________________

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J DATE: 18.08.2025 TJMR