TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the award based on the agreement dated 6.10.2004 was void and inexecutable because its object and consideration were unlawful and opposed to public policy; (ii) Whether the illegality of the award could be examined at the stage of execution notwithstanding dismissal of objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on limitation.
Issue (i): Whether the award based on the agreement dated 6.10.2004 was void and inexecutable because its object and consideration were unlawful and opposed to public policy.
Analysis: The agreement contemplated payment by bus owners to the claimant for permitting operation on a route and also purported to authorise collection of fines and enforcement measures. The arrangement was held to encroach upon functions reserved to the State and traffic authorities. Applying Sections 23 and 24 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the court found that the object and consideration were unlawful, the agreement was contrary to public policy, and the award founded on such agreement was a nullity.
Conclusion: The award was void ab initio and could not be executed.
Issue (ii): Whether the illegality of the award could be examined at the stage of execution notwithstanding dismissal of objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on limitation.
Analysis: A decree or award that is a nullity may be questioned in execution. The prior dismissal of Section 34 objections on limitation did not amount to an adjudication on merits of the validity of the award, and therefore did not bar the executing court from refusing enforcement of an award that was inherently illegal and inexecutable.
Conclusion: The executing court was entitled to decline enforcement of the award despite the earlier dismissal of Section 34 objections.
Final Conclusion: The challenge failed, the execution order was sustained, and the award remained set aside with consequential restitution available in law.
Ratio Decidendi: An award founded on an agreement whose object or consideration is unlawful and opposed to public policy is a nullity and remains open to challenge in execution, even if a prior Section 34 challenge was rejected only on a procedural ground.
TaxTMI 
