Execution challenge to arbitral award fails absent prima facie fraud or jurisdictional nullity at the Section 47 stage.

Section 47 CPC can be invoked at the execution stage only on narrow grounds, including a showing that the decree or arbitral award is a nullity or suffers from inherent jurisdictional infirmity; the objection is therefore not barred in principle, but it succeeds only if true voidness is established. On the facts, the contractual documents, correspondence, pricing mechanism and surrounding commercial conduct did not disclose even prima facie fraud, collusion, or breach of fiduciary duty by the judgment debtor's senior management. The explanation for the pricing and delivery structure was found plausible, and the later criminal complaint and FIR did not by themselves render the award inexecutable. The execution objections were rejected and the award remained enforceable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were maintainable to resist execution of an arbitral award on the ground that the award was a nullity or otherwise inexecutable on account of fraud. (ii) Whether the material placed before the Court disclosed, even prima facie, fraud or breach of fiduciary duty by the senior managerial personnel of the judgment debtor so as to render the award inexecutable.

Issue (i): Whether objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were maintainable to resist execution of an arbitral award on the ground that the award was a nullity or otherwise inexecutable on account of fraud.

Analysis: Section 47 operates within a narrow compass at the stage of execution. An executing court cannot go behind the decree, and an objection to executability lies only where the decree or award is shown to be a nullity or affected by inherent jurisdictional infirmity. A challenge to an arbitral award is not barred merely because no further challenge under Section 34 survives, but such an objection must still be confined to the limited grounds recognised at the execution stage.

Conclusion: The objection under Section 47 was not barred in principle, but it could succeed only if a true case of nullity or jurisdictional voidness was shown.

Issue (ii): Whether the material placed before the Court disclosed, even prima facie, fraud or breach of fiduciary duty by the senior managerial personnel of the judgment debtor so as to render the award inexecutable.

Analysis: The contractual documents, correspondence, price fixation mechanism, subsequent conduct of the parties, and the surrounding commercial circumstances did not establish that the officers of the judgment debtor acted outside the range of reasonableness or contrary to the business judgment rule. The Court found the explanation that the price and delivery structure were linked to the SAIL/RINL contracts to be plausible, and the later criminal complaint and FIR were insufficient by themselves to dislodge the finality of the award or prove collusion affecting executability.

Conclusion: No prima facie case of fraud, collusion, or breach of fiduciary duty was made out, and the award could not be treated as inexecutable.

Final Conclusion: The objections to execution were rejected, and the award remained enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge under Section 47 to execution of an arbitral award lies only on narrow grounds of nullity or jurisdictional infirmity, and allegations of fraud or breach of fiduciary duty must be supported by prima facie material showing conduct that no reasonably competent decision-maker could have adopted.

---