Execution of arbitral awards: factual jurisdictional objections cannot be raised against a decree-like award unless the defect is patent.

An arbitral award that has not been set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 attains finality and is enforceable as a decree under section 35. In execution, the court cannot reopen the merits or investigate disputed factual questions, including whether an arbitration agreement existed or whether the tribunal lacked jurisdiction, because such objections require factual inquiry and must be raised in the statutory challenge process. Only a patent jurisdictional defect apparent on the face of the record can be considered in execution under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The document states that the expiry of the section 34 remedy does not widen the scope of execution.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in execution proceedings, the executing court can examine the validity of an arbitral award and refuse execution on the ground that there was no arbitration agreement or that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

Analysis: An arbitral award, once it is not successfully set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, attains finality and is enforceable as a decree under section 35. The executing court is bound by the decree and cannot reopen the merits or investigate disputed questions of fact. Objection to execution on the ground of want of jurisdiction is entertainable only where the defect is patent and appears on the face of the record. A plea that there was no arbitration agreement, or that the arbitration clause was not binding, requires factual investigation and therefore cannot be examined in execution. The tribunal's rejection of the jurisdictional objection could have been challenged under section 34, but the expiry of that remedy does not enlarge the scope of execution under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The executing court cannot decide the alleged absence of an arbitration agreement or other factual challenges to jurisdiction in execution proceedings; only a clear and obvious jurisdictional nullity can be raised there, and the objection here was not of that kind.

Ratio Decidendi: In execution, an arbitral award treated as a decree can be resisted only for a jurisdictional defect that is patent on the face of the record; disputed factual issues, including the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, must be pursued under the statutory challenge mechanism and not in execution.

---