Court dismisses petition challenging arbitral award's execution under Section 47 CPC, upholds compliance order.

The court dismissed the petition, ruling that objections to the arbitral award's execution under Section 47 of the CPC were not maintainable unless the award suffered from a clear lack of jurisdiction. It found that the award was not a nullity and upheld the order for compliance with the award, as the insolvency resolution plan did not render the award unenforceable. The Facilitation Council retained jurisdiction post-approval of the resolution plan to proceed with the arbitral award.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of objections to execution under Section 47 of CPC.
2. Whether the arbitral award is a nullity and non-executable.
3. Jurisdiction of Facilitation Council post-insolvency resolution plan approval.

Issue-wise Comprehensive Details:

1. Maintainability of objections to execution under Section 47 of CPC:
The court examined if objections to the execution of an arbitral award, alleging it to be a nullity, can be raised under Section 47 of the CPC. The court referred to various judgments, including (2017) 5 SCC 371 (Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan), which held that an executing court can only entertain objections if the decree is void ab initio or a nullity. The court concluded that objections under Section 47 of CPC are maintainable in a very narrow scope, specifically when the award suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction apparent on the face of the record.

2. Whether the arbitral award is a nullity and non-executable:
The court assessed whether the arbitral award in question could be considered a nullity. The petitioner argued that the Facilitation Council lost jurisdiction due to the insolvency resolution plan. However, the court found that the arbitral proceedings were initiated before the insolvency commencement date, suspended during the moratorium, and resumed post-moratorium. The court referred to the resolution plan and found no evidence that the respondent's claim was settled at NIL. Consequently, the court held that the arbitral award did not suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction and was not a nullity.

3. Jurisdiction of Facilitation Council post-insolvency resolution plan approval:
The court examined whether the Facilitation Council lost jurisdiction to proceed with the arbitral award after the approval of the insolvency resolution plan. The court found that the resolution plan did not nullify the respondent's claim or terminate the pending arbitral proceedings. The court concluded that the Facilitation Council retained jurisdiction to proceed and pronounce the arbitral award, as the resolution plan did not determine the respondent's claim as NIL.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the objections raised by the petitioner were not fit to be entertained at the stage of execution. The court found no merit in the argument that the arbitral award was a nullity and upheld the impugned order directing the petitioner to comply with the award.

---