Execution of arbitration award

Award must be treated as a decree passed by the District Judge and it may be executed either by the District Judge himself or by any Court to which it may be sent by such District Judge for execution vide Section 38 of CPC _ Decree holder must apply for execution of an award to the Court of District Judge.

Thank you Sir for your reply.

As per my understanding, "Award must be treated as a decree passed by the District Judge" is the principle laid down by the Bombay High Court in 51 Years vs Raju Natthuji Badhe.

However as per S.38 of the CPC as lays down that "A decree may be executed either by the court which passed it, or by the Court to which it is sent for execution".

In this case the award had been appealed before the High Court and then had been confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Also if the award by the arbitrator is treated by a decree itself then does it have to be necessarily executed by the District Judge or by the High Court as well, since Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act defines Court as:

"Court" means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes.

In this case, I fail to understand why would the High Court not be of appropriate jurisdiction ?

Also it would be very helpful if you could please reply to the other issues which I had put forward in the original post.

Regards.

"While under the Act of 1996, the meaning of the term "Court", was, however, narrowed down and confined to be "the principal Civil Court of the original jurisdiction in a District" and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the subject matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of a suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such Principal Civil Court or any Small Causes Court."

"The Parliament, in the Act of 1996, has intendedly used the term "Court" and not the "District Court" as we usually find in various other enactments. From a plain and literal reading of the definition of "Court" it is apparent that the definition is inclusive. It specifically includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Under section 3(17) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and section 3(15) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 the term "District Judge" means the Judge of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction. The High Court in exercise of its ordinary original jurisdiction is not included in these definitions. To get out of these definitions and with a view to include the High Court, the Parliament in the Act of 1996 has not used the term "District Court" and has used only "Court" to mean and include the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original jurisdiction."

(See 2007 (5) LJSOFT 15 FB)

For full text visit www.ljsoft.co.in (FREE to register Free to use)

Hi,

Kindly see the pecuinary jurisdiction of the court in Kolkatta other wise Kolkatta high court has the original jurisdiction and hence section 34 can be also filed before the high court depending on the pecuinary jurisdiction of the courts there.

Regards

Saurendra Rautray

Rautray&co

www.rautray.com

09437008255