Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court, Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that arbitral awards cannot be kept from execution solely because an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is pending. The dispute reached the Court after the award-holder sought enforcement of an award despite the dismissal of Section 34 objections. The judgment-debtors maintained that the award should not be executed until their appeal was resolved. The Court made clear that, absent an interim stay, the Execution Court must move forward with execution and address objections under law.

The dispute before the Supreme Court arose from an arbitral award challenged under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent judgment-debtors filed objections to the award under Section 34 of the Act. These objections were rejected. Following the dismissal, the appellant, as award-holder and decree-holder, initiated execution proceedings to enforce the arbitral award.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Uttarakhand Doctor Acquitted in Homicide Case on Grounds of Private Defence | Right of Self-Preservation Not to Be Weighed on Golden Scales

During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the respondents preferred an appeal under Section 37 of the Act against the rejection of their Section 34 objections. The appeal was pending before the appropriate forum but no interim stay order had been granted in relation to the arbitral award.

The Execution Court, namely the High Court of Delhi, passed an order dated 09.05.2025 adjourning the execution hearing on the ground that the appeal under Section 37 was pending. The decree-holder, aggrieved by the deferment of the execution proceedings, approached the Supreme Court by way of appeal.

The central issue before the Court was whether the Execution Court was justified in postponing execution of the arbitral award solely on account of the pendency of a Section 37 appeal, in the absence of an interim stay. The appellant contended that the award was enforceable, as objections under Section 34 stood dismissed and no stay order was operating. The respondents argued that the appeal raised questions affecting executability, and until such appeal was decided, the execution should not proceed.

The Court noted the limited scope of the matter, stating: “The short issue that arises for our consideration is whether the Execution Court should defer the proceedings qua execution of the award only because an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996… is pending against rejection of an application under Section 34 of the Act.”

It recorded that: “It is not in issue that an objection under Section 34 of the Act was preferred against the arbitral award which has been rejected. Though an appeal under Section 37 of the Act is pending, there is no stay order operating against the award. The decree-holder has put the award into execution.”

The Bench further observed: “In our view, the question of executability of the award can be gone into by the Execution Court in accordance with law while addressing objections as and when raised. However, it would not be proper for the Execution Court to defer consideration of the execution application and the objections thereto only because an appeal is pending under Section 37 when there is no interim order operating against the award against which objection under Section 34 of the Act stands rejected.”

Also Read: Long Incarceration Serves No Purpose | Madras High Court Grants Interim Bail to Financier in Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Case Under TNPID and BUDS Acts

It directed: “In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal by observing that subject to any interim order passed in the appeal pending under Section 37 of the Act, the Execution Court shall be free to proceed with the execution of the award in accordance with law.”

“Needless to observe that if any objection is raised as regards executability of the award, the same shall be addressed in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.”

“With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Kunal Kalra, Advocate; Ms. Kanika Bansal, Advocate; Mr. Ayush Anand, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Monu Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Ritu Raj, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sachin Yadav, Advocate; Ms. Sangeeta Vazirani, Advocate; Mr. Deepak Joshi, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Shivam Yadav, Advocate; Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Nadeem Saifi, Advocate

Case Title: Chakardhari Sureka v. Prem Lata Sureka through SPA & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 11840 of 2025 (@SLP (C) No. 20480 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan