Section 47 CPC Cannot Be Invoked In Enforcement Of Arbitral Award Before Executing Court: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed thar an arbitral award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is required to be construed as a decree only for the purposes of enforcement and Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, cannot be invoked for such proceedings.
The Bench of Justice CM Poonacha observed, “Although it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that having regard to Section 36 of the Act of 1996 the award passed under the provisions of the Act of 1996 is to be treated as a decree and Section 47 of the CPC could be invoked, it is relevant to note that having regard to Section 36(1) of the Act of 1996, the award passed under the provisions of the said Act is required to be construed as a decree only for the purpose of enforcement of the same and it is not open to the petitioner to invoke Section 47 of the CPC before the executing Court.”
Advocate Prashant F Goudar appeared for the Petitioner whereas Advocate V Vidya appeared for the Respondent.
A Civil Revision Petition was filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the order passed in an execution case by the District Judge wherein an application under Section 47 of the CPC, by which the petitioner challenged the arbitral award, was dismissed.
The Court considered the question of whether the Petitioner was entitled to file the application under Section 47 of the CPC raising the question regarding the inherent lack of subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the award sought to be executed by the executing Court, especially if challenging the arbitral award. Section 47 of the CPC stipulates that all the questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed and relating to the execution of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
The Court thus said, “Having regard to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Paramjeet Singh Patheja, Morgan Securities, Vedanta Limited, this Court is in complete agreement with the view expressed in Larsen and Tubro as well as State of Tripura and in view of the said authoritative pronouncements, it is clear that the petitioner cannot take recourse of Section 47 of the CPC in the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent…Although various contentions have been urged on the merits of the matter that the provisions of the MSMED Act are not applicable, in view of the discussion made above that it shall not be open to the petitioner to invoke Section 47 of the CPC. The question framed for consideration at para 11 hereinabove is answered in the negative.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition as being devoid of merit.
Cause Title: M/s Bellary Nirmithi Kendra v. M/s Capital Metal Industries
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Prashant F Goudar
Respondent: Advocate V Vidya
