Execution objections to an arbitral award are limited to patent nullity or inherent lack of jurisdiction, not Section 34-type challenges.

An arbitral award not challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 may be resisted in execution under Section 47 CPC only if it is shown on the face of the record to be a nullity or affected by inherent lack of jurisdiction. A plea that requires deeper factual and legal examination, including whether an insolvency resolution plan extinguished the underlying claim, cannot ordinarily be raised at the execution stage. On the facts discussed, the approved resolution plan did not establish that the pending claim was finally extinguished, and the Facilitation Council was not shown to have lost jurisdiction to resume arbitration after the moratorium ended.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an objection to execution of an arbitral award could be maintained under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the plea that the award was a nullity despite no challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; (ii) Whether, on the facts, the arbitral award could be treated as a nullity and therefore inexecutable; (iii) Whether approval of the insolvency resolution plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 deprived the Facilitation Council of jurisdiction to proceed and make the award.

Issue (i): Whether an objection to execution of an arbitral award could be maintained under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the plea that the award was a nullity despite no challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

Analysis: The narrow scope of execution proceedings permits an objection only where the decree or award is void ab initio, suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction, or is otherwise a nullity apparent on the face of the record. Grounds that properly fall within Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot ordinarily be re-agitated in execution under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, where the award is said to be non est in the eye of law because of a fundamental jurisdictional defect, such a plea may be examined at the execution stage.

Conclusion: A limited objection of nullity was legally maintainable in execution, but only within a very narrow compass.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, the arbitral award could be treated as a nullity and therefore inexecutable?

Analysis: The claim underlying the award had been pending before the Facilitation Council, arbitration was interrupted during the moratorium period, and proceedings were resumed after the moratorium ended. The approved resolution plan and the connected insolvency orders did not establish that the respondent's claim in the pending arbitration was extinguished as nil in a manner that rendered the award void on the face of the record. Determining whether the claim stood fully nullified would require a detailed examination of the resolution plan and related orders, which takes the matter outside the limited domain of Section 47 objections.

Conclusion: The award was not shown to be a nullity or inherently without jurisdiction.

Issue (iii): Whether approval of the insolvency resolution plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 deprived the Facilitation Council of jurisdiction to proceed and make the award?

Analysis: The insolvency proceedings commenced under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the arbitration was kept in abeyance during the moratorium under Section 14, and the award was made after the moratorium ended. The resolution plan did not finally extinguish the respondent's pending arbitration claim in the manner urged. The claim was noticed in the resolution materials, but the record did not show that the Council lost jurisdiction to continue the arbitration and pronounce the award after revival of the proceedings.

Conclusion: The Facilitation Council did not lose jurisdiction on account of the approved resolution plan.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to execution failed because the grounds raised did not establish a patent jurisdictional defect or a void award, and the impugned order refusing to interfere with execution was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award not challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be assailed in execution only if the award is shown on the face of the record to be a nullity or suffering from inherent lack of jurisdiction; a contested plea requiring factual and legal examination cannot be raised under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---