CPC Provisions Govern Stay Of Execution Proceedings Initiated Under Section 36(1) Of Arbitration Act: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra has held that held that since the Arbitration Act is silent on the aspect of filing an application before the executing court to stay the operation of execution proceedings initiated under Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act, the provisions of the CPC would be followed for this purpose. The High Court noted that the Arbitration Act provides in Section 35 that an arbitral award is final and binding, subject to the provisions of this Part, on the parties and those claiming under them. Section 36 delineates the enforcement process which states that once the time for challenging the arbitral award under Section 34 has elapsed, the award shall be enforceable akin to a court decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), unless an application for stay of the award's operation is granted under subsection (3). Subsection (3) of Section 36 permits courts to stay the operation of an arbitral award upon application, with conditions as deemed appropriate. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court referred to Order 21, Rule 26 which governs the stay of execution of decrees, allowing courts to order stays pending applications and imposing conditions upon judgment-debtors. Order 41, Rules 1(3), 4, and 5 address the procedure for appeals. Interpreting Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act, the Supreme Court in Pam Developments Private Limited v. State of West Bengal and Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Private Limited clarified that while courts should consider the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for guidance in granting stays, these provisions do not supersede the Arbitration Act's main provisions but serve as guiding principles. Therefore, the High Court held that the enforcement and appeal mechanisms under the Arbitration Act coupled with the procedural frameworks outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide a comprehensive framework for the finality, enforcement, and appellate processes concerning arbitral awards. The High Court noted that the proviso in section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act which mandates "due regard" to the provisions of granting a stay on a money decree under the C.P.C. signifies that the C.P.C. provisions are to be considered but not necessarily mandated. It noted that the Arbitration Act's provisions take precedence with the C.P.C. guidelines followed as advisory. It held that an application for executing an arbitral award under section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act can only be made after the deadline for challenging the award under section 34 of the Arbitration Act has passed. The bench held that Section 36(2) of the Arbitration Act does not apply to execution proceedings initiated under section 36(1) where requests to suspend the award's operation must be made during the section 34 application's pendency. The bench noted that in Order 41 Rule 5(2) of the C.P.C. if an execution proceeding is initiated before the time for appealing against a section 34 application's order expires, the judgment debtor may approach the decree-passing court for execution suspension. Similarly, if the judgment debtor appeals under section 37 of the Act against a Commercial Court order under section 34, an application under Order 41 Rule 5(1) may be filed with the Appellate Court to suspend the decree execution, as no specific provision akin to section 36(2) exists under the Arbitration Act for staying the Commercial Court's impugned order. Considering the provisions in Order 41 Rule 5(3) of the C.P.C., the High Court held that a stay on executing an appealable decree may not be granted unless the Court is satisfied: a) significant harm could occur without the stay; b) the application was filed without undue delay; and c) the applicant furnished appropriate security for the decree's due fulfillment. The bench held that: (i) The phrase used in the proviso under sub-section 3 of Section 36 of the Act, 1996 “have due regard to the provisions of grant of stay of a money decree under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)” only mean that the provisions of C.P.C. are to be taken into consideration and not that they are mandatory. (ii) The provisions of the Act, 1996 are essentially to be first applied, whereas the provisions of C.P.C. for execution are to be followed as a guidance. (iii) An application for execution of arbitral award in terms of section 36(1) of the Act, 1996 can only be filed after expiry of the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral Award under section 34 of the Act, 1996. (iv) Section 36(2) of the Act, 1996 is not applicable to execution proceeding initiated under Section 36(1) of the Act, 1996 and such application for stay operation of arbitral Award can only be filed before the Court during ...

CPC Provisions Govern Stay Of Execution Proceedings Initiated Under Section 36(1) Of Arbitration Act: Orissa High Court

Rajesh Kumar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

CPC Provisions Govern Stay Of Execution Proceedings Initiated Under Section 36(1) Of Arbitration Act: Orissa High Court

Rajesh Kumar

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers