https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309254 A judgment debtor who had earlier filed but later withdrew a Section 34 challenge could not, in execution proceedings, reopen the validity of the arbitral award by collateral objection. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 treats Section 34 as the proper remedy to set aside an award, and once that remedy is not pursued to conclusion, the award attains finality and is enforceable as a decree. The Delhi HC therefore held the objection application not maintainable, dismissed it, and treated the execution petition as satisfied. en-us Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Aug 2023 13:06:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309254 A judgment debtor who had earlier filed but later withdrew a Section 34 challenge could not, in execution proceedings, reopen the validity of the arbitral award by collateral objection. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 treats Section 34 as the proper remedy to set aside an award, and once that remedy is not pursued to conclusion, the award attains finality and is enforceable as a decree. The Delhi HC therefore held the objection application not maintainable, dismissed it, and treated the execution petition as satisfied. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309254