Arbitral award as decree cannot be reopened later absent inherent lack of jurisdiction; executing courts cannot go behind the decree.

An arbitral award made a rule of the court, without objections being pursued by either party, attains the status of a decree and is ordinarily not open to later challenge in appeal or review. The Court applied the principle that reopening such a matter after the award has been accepted would be unfair, inequitable, and unjust. It also reaffirmed that an executing court cannot go behind a decree unless there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction. On that basis, the challenge to the decree was not entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the challenge to the order making the arbitral award a rule of the court, including the award of interest, could be entertained after the parties had not filed objections and the award had attained the status of a decree.

Analysis: The award had been made a rule of the court without challenge by either side, and the earlier record showed that objections were not pursued. In these circumstances, reopening the matter at the stage of appeal or review was held to be unfair, inequitable, and unjust. The Court also accepted the settled principle that an executing court cannot go behind a decree unless there is inherent lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the decree was not entertained and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an arbitral award has been made a rule of the court without challenge by the parties, the matter cannot ordinarily be reopened later, and a decree so passed cannot be impeached except on the ground of inherent lack of jurisdiction.

---