Facts

Respondent had defaulted on a loan and the Appellant had sought repossession    of his truck as a result. The arbitration clause was invoked and an ex-parte award was issued in the Appellant’s favour.  During execution proceedings, the trial court  in Morena, Madhya Pradesh returned the execution application on account of lack    of jurisdiction. The appellant was asked to first file execution proceedings before the competent Court in Tamil  Nadu having jurisdiction over the proceeding, obtain   a transfer of the decree and then seekexecution before the Court in Morena.

Issue

Whether an award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is required to be first filed in the Court having jurisdiction over the proceedings for execution  and then to obtain transfer of the decree or whether the award can be directly    filed and executed in theCourt where the assets are located.

View

In the case of an arbitral award, there is no decree passed but the award itself is executed as a decree by fiction, unlike the position under the 1940 Act. An award    is equated to a decree only for the purpose of execution,  nothing else. Section 43   of the 1996 Act has no relevance in determining jurisdiction after the final award has been passed and the mandate of the arbitral tribunal has terminated.

Held

Execution proceedings can be filed anywhere in the country where such decree  can be executed and there is no requirement for the transfer of decree from the Court which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. (CA No 1650   of 2018 dt. 15-2-2018)

Editorial: Ratio is relevant when dealing with execution proceedings of arbitral awards. It significantly eases the mechanism for seeking enforcement of an arbitral award in jurisdictions where the opposite party may have its assets.

“Each one has to find his peace from within, and peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances.”

– Mahatma Gandhi