Arbitral award execution turns on debtor or asset location; transfer of execution was declined, and Bangalore court remained competent.

An arbitral award is directly executable as a decree under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and need not first be made a rule of court under the earlier regime. Territorial jurisdiction for execution depends on where the judgment debtors or attachable assets are situated, so the court handling a Section 34 challenge does not become the decree-transmitting court. On that basis, the request for a precept or transfer of execution was declined, and the decree holder was left to pursue execution before the competent court at Bangalore.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be entertained for issuance of a precept or for transfer of execution proceedings to Bangalore, where the judgment debtors and their assets were situated.

Analysis: Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitral award is directly executable as a decree and there is no requirement that it first be made a rule of court in the manner contemplated under the earlier regime. Territorial jurisdiction for execution depends on the location of the judgment debtors or the property against which enforcement is sought. The Court relied on the settled view that the court which deals with a Section 34 challenge does not become the decree-transmitting court under the 1996 Act, and that the executing court must have jurisdiction where the debtor or assets are located.

Conclusion: The prayer for issuance of a precept or transfer of the execution petition was declined, and the decree holder was left to pursue execution before the competent court at Bangalore.

---