The Hon’ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara Civil Revision Petition No.1487 of 2024

Order:

The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/Decree Holder aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in E.P.No.2 of 2024 in Arb.Case No.3014 of 2022, dated 23.02.2024, wherein, the petition filed to execute the Arbitration Award dated 29.12.2022 in Arbitration Case No.3014 of 2022 filed under Section 23 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) has been dismissed as the award passed by the Arbitrator, is non est and void in the eye of law.

2. Heard Sri T. Sharath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/Decree holder. Though notice was served, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1. Perused the record.

3. The background facts giving rise to the filing of the revision petition are that the petitioner herein entered into a Hypothecation-cum-Loan Agreement, dated 04.10.2019 with the respondent herein for disbursing an amount of Rs.Rs.8,00,000/-. When there was default in payment of EMIs, a claim petition vide Arb. Case No.3014 of 2022 was filed before the sole arbitrator nominated by the petitioner under Article 22 (a) of the Hypothecation-cum-Loan Agreement. Pursuant to said nomination, the arbitrator passed an award dated 29.12.2022 directing the respondents/Judgment debtors to pay a sum of Rs.18,53,886/- with interest at 12% per annum. Said award was presented before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District for execution vide E.P.No.2 of 2024. The said E.P was heard on maintainability and dismissed based on the precedent laid down by the High Court of Delhi in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Narendra Kumar Prajapat¹ Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred.

4. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that so long as the award is not set aside by a competent Court, the same can be enforced. Further, it is pleaded that an Executing Court can examine the executability of decree only in case there is a challenge to it by contesting party. In the instant case, there was no such challenge. Therefore, it is contended that an Executing

2023 SCC Online Del 3148 Court suo motu cannot enter into and decide the correctness of the award.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case between Pradeep Mehra v. Harijivan J. Jethwa (since deceased thr. LRs.) and others2, wherein, it is held as below: “5. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that all questions between the parties can be decided by the executing court. But the important aspect to remember is that these questions are limited to the “execution of the decree”. The executing court can never go behind the decree. Under Section 47, CPC the executing court cannot examine the validity of the order of the court which had allowed the execution of the decree in 2013, unless the court’s order is itself without jurisdiction. More importantly this order (the order dated 12.02.2013), was never challenged by the tenants/judgment debtors before any forum.”

6. The above legal ratio laid down was in the context of a decree passed by a civil Court in an eviction suit. In said instance, the decree was passed by a Court having jurisdiction. Said fact scenario is not applicable to the present case in which the award was passed by an Arbitrator who was unilaterally

2 MANU/SC/1189/2023

appointed by the revision petitioner who is a Finance Company and the jurisdiction of said sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and pass an award is challenged.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that by examining the maintainability of the decree, the Executing Court has gone behind the decree and the same is not tenable as per the legal ratio laid down in Pradeep Mehra (2 supra). With respect to EPs filed from the awards passed by arbit