Limitation For Execution Of Arbitration Award Starts Running From Date It Becomes Enforceable: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The limitation ran from January 7, 2002, when Section 34 objections were dismissed; execution first filed in 2024 held time-barred; Gajanan v. Prahlad distinguished.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench has held that the doctrine of merger does not apply to arbitral awards, so limitation for executing a domestic award starts running from the date it becomes enforceable. The Court noted that no appeal lies against an award, so an award cannot merge into an order passed under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Consrequentially, the Court held the award enforceable from January 7, 2002, when the Section 34 objections were dismissed under the unamended Section 36. The twelve-year period under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 therefore expired on January 6, 2014. It distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in Gajanan v. Prahladn Civil Appeal No.3524/2026 on 18.3.2026, which concerned merger of a decree in an appellate order, and left open whether only the principal civil court can execute such an award.
A Bench of Justice Vinay Saraf observed, “No appeal is provided in law against the arbitral awards and even after passing the order under Section 34 and 37 only the arbitral award is executable and the orders passed under Section 34 or 37 would not become executable, therefore, the doctrine of merger would not be applicable to the arbitration award and thus, the limitation for filing execution would start from the date when the award becomes enforceable. As per the amended provisions of Section 36 of the Act, the mere filing of an application to set aside the arbitral award is not sufficient and by filing itself, that award shall not render unenforceable and the same will be enforceable after expiry of the period prescribed under Section 34 of the Act for filing an application to set aside the arbitral award…”.
“…Until and unless the court grants an order for staying the operation of the said arbitral award in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 36, the award would be enforceable after expiry of the limitation period provided for filing the application under Section 34 of the Act. Before amendment, 2015 the award was executable in case, the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not filed within limitation or if the application is filed and the same has been dismissed, meaning thereby there was an automatic stay or impediment to the execution of award, if the application has been filed within the limitation prescribed under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act”, the Bench noted.
Advocate Aditya Garg appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Veer Kumar Jain appeared for the respondent.
During the civil suit, the parties were referred to a sole arbitrator, who passed an award on January 10, 2000 for delivery of possession of land. The civil court rejected the judgment debtor’s Section 34 objections on January 7, 2002 and passed a decree. The first appeal failed on October 24, 2005, thereafter on September 5, 2019, a Coordinate Bench allowed second appeal, holding that the civil court was functus officio after reference and that its post-award proceedings were non-est. It granted liberty to file Section 34 objections before the competent court.
That fresh Section 34 application remains pending. The award holder’s first execution, filed in 2024, was declined for insufficient stamp duty. After impounding, a second execution was filed as execution (Arbitration) case. On September 21, 2026, the Executing Court rejected the judgment debtor’s Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application, holding the pending Section 34 challenge kept the execution within limitation. The judgment debtor filed this revision.
The Court relied on Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd. 2020(10) SCC 1, holding that the Section 36 fiction treats an award as a decree only for enforcement, and that Article 136 applies to domestic awards. It held that Gajanan, Chandi Prasad and Shanti, which rest on merger in appellate decrees, do not apply. Because the award was never stayed, the execution filed in 2024 was out of time.
The revision was allowed and the Executing Court’s order was set aside. Execution Arbitration Case No. 05/2026 was rejected as barred by limitation, with no order as to costs.
Cause Title: Ashok Kumar v. Bhupendra Kumar Lunkad & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:29713)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Aditya Garg, Advocate.
Respondent: Veer Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate, Nitin Phadke, Advocate.