Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether pendency of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 operates as an automatic stay of execution of an arbitral award once an application under Section 34 has been refused.
Analysis: Sections 35 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were read together with the scheme and object of the statute, which emphasise finality of arbitral awards, minimal court supervision, and speedy enforcement. The expression "this Part" in Section 35 was held to refer to Chapter VIII and not to include the appeals chapter so as to create an implied stay. The Act contains no provision comparable to Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure that makes filing of an appeal by itself a stay of execution. The principle of merger could not override the express statutory scheme, and enforcement could not be stalled merely because an appeal remained pending without a stay order.
Conclusion: Pendency of the appeal did not create an automatic stay, and the execution petition was maintainable. The order dismissing execution was set aside and the execution proceedings were restored.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitral award becomes enforceable once Section 34 relief is refused, and a pending appeal under Section 37 does not, by itself, stay execution unless a stay is specifically granted.