https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108937 An arbitral award that has not been set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 attains finality and is enforceable as a decree under section 35. In execution, the court cannot reopen the merits or investigate disputed factual questions, including whether an arbitration agreement existed or whether the tribunal lacked jurisdiction, because such objections require factual inquiry and must be raised in the statutory challenge process. Only a patent jurisdictional defect apparent on the face of the record can be considered in execution under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The document states that the expiry of the section 34 remedy does not widen the scope of execution. en-us Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:54:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108937 An arbitral award that has not been set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 attains finality and is enforceable as a decree under section 35. In execution, the court cannot reopen the merits or investigate disputed factual questions, including whether an arbitration agreement existed or whether the tribunal lacked jurisdiction, because such objections require factual inquiry and must be raised in the statutory challenge process. Only a patent jurisdictional defect apparent on the face of the record can be considered in execution under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The document states that the expiry of the section 34 remedy does not widen the scope of execution. Case-Laws Companies Law Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108937