Final arbitral awards cannot be resisted in execution on jurisdictional grounds, while separate disputed property may still receive interim protection.

An arbitral award that was not challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 attains finality and is enforceable as a decree under Section 36; objections that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction or that the award is inexecutable cannot be raised in execution, and the executing court cannot go behind the award. The challenge to execution therefore failed. However, where the award covered only the licensed portion of an industrial shed, the plaintiff retained a separate claim to the remaining portion not covered by the licence deed or award, and interim protection could still be granted for that distinct area because possession and title remained in dispute.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an arbitral award that was not challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be resisted in execution on the ground that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction or that the award was inexecutable; (ii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to ad interim injunction in respect of the remaining portion of the industrial shed not covered by the licence deed and arbitral award.

Issue (i): whether an arbitral award that was not challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be resisted in execution on the ground that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction or that the award was inexecutable.

Analysis: Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that an award, once the time for challenging it under Section 34 has expired or such challenge has been refused, is enforceable as if it were a decree of the Court. The award in question had attained finality because no application was filed to set it aside under Section 34. The arbitrator had decided, after notice, that the petitioners were licensees, that the licence had expired, and that possession thereafter was unauthorised. In execution, the petitioners could not reopen that concluded finding or contend that the award was without jurisdiction. The executing court could not go behind the award treated as a decree, and the plea based on the Rent Act could not be entertained at that stage.

Conclusion: The objection to executability failed, and the order directing execution of the award was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the plaintiff was entitled to ad interim injunction in respect of the remaining portion of the industrial shed not covered by the licence deed and arbitral award.

Analysis: The award and its execution covered only the licensed portion of the shed. As to the remaining portion, the record showed admitted possession of the plaintiff and the nature of that possession had not yet been finally determined. The suit concerned the entire property, and the plaintiff could not be dispossessed from that portion except in due course of law. The earlier findings on licence and expiry did not govern the distinct remaining portion, and the material on record did not justify refusal of interim protection at that stage.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to ad interim injunction only for the remaining portion of the shed, not for the licensed portion covered by the award.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to execution of the arbitral award failed, but limited interim protection was granted in respect of the portion of the property outside the licence and award, resulting in a partial allowance of the connected revision.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award that has attained finality by not being challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is enforceable like a decree and cannot be questioned in execution on jurisdictional grounds that were available earlier, while interim injunction may still be granted for a separately identifiable portion of property not covered by the final award if possession of that portion remains in dispute.

---