THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1583 of 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/decree holder, aggrieved by the docket order dated 09.08.2024 passed in E.P SR No.1112 of 2024 in A.R.C No.H926858768 by the Principal District Judge, Suryapet for returning the E.P without numbering the same.

2. Heard Sri K.S. Suneel, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. As the CRP was filed challenging the return of E.P without numbering it, the CRP is disposed of at the stage of admission, without issuing notice to the respondents itself.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner – D.Hr filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 11 seeking to issue attachment order to the respondents – J.Drs. under Order 21, Rule 64, but the trial Court returned the E.P on the ground that the award passed by the Arbitrator who was appointed unilaterally was not executable by placing reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited., Vs. Narender Kumar Prajapat reported in [2023 SCC OnLine Del 3148], but the said judgment was not applicable to the present case, as the Arbitrator was not appointed unilaterally, but the petitioner referred the dispute to SAMA, an independent Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) institution recognized by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. He further submitted that notices were issued to the respondents – J.Drs. under Pre Arbitration notice dated 25.09.2023. The Arbitrator had also issued notices to the respondents – JDR’s but they remained silent. Duly following the procedure under Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an award was passed by the Arbitrator. He further submitted that the lower appellate Court without application of mind returned the E.P without giving any opportunity to the petitioner –

D.Hr.

4.1. He further submitted that even if the ratio of the judgment of the Delhi High Court that an Arbitrator cannot be appointed unilaterally was accepted, the said issue must be raised before the Arbitrator but not before the Executing Court. The Executing Court taking such objection without issuing notices to the respondents was not maintainable.

5. Perused the record.

6. As the Arbitration and Conciliation Act mandates that an arbitral award, once filed and challenged under Section 34 shall be enforced as a decree of the Court, the refusal to register the E.P. frustrates the statutory mandate and renders the arbitral process nugatory. The Executing Court cannot go into the merits of the arbitration award including objections such as whether it was passed unilaterally, during the execution stage unless the award is a nullity on the face of the record or falls under exceptions under Section 47 or 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for foreign awards) or Section 36 read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for domestic awards). In an execution, the court cannot re-examine the validity or correctness of the award. It can only look into whether decree (award) is executable and within the bounds of the law. If a party claims that the award was passed unilaterally i.e. ex parte without proper notice or opportunity for him to be heard, that might be a ground under Section 34 (2) (a) (ii) for setting aside the award. But it is not for the executing court to consider the same. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Fiza Developers & Inter-Trade P.Ltd. v. AMCI (I) P.Ltd. the merits of the award cannot be reexamined during execution. The

1 (2009) 17 SCC 796

Hon’ble Apex Court in Leela Hotels Limited v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited, (2012) 1 SCC 302 held that executing court cannot go behind the decree.

7. As the docket order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Suryapet, returning the EP without numbering it by placing reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Narender Kumar Prajapat w