https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309258 An award made by a person who had already ceased to hold the office conferring arbitral authority was void for want of jurisdiction, because the power to act depended on continued holding of that office. The executing court could examine that nullity under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, even without any prior direct challenge to the award, and treat the decree founded on it as inexecutable. An order refusing to treat the award-decree as a nullity and directing execution was appealable as it affected substantive rights. The award and the decree based on it were therefore held void. en-us Mon, 01 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Aug 2023 13:13:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309258 An award made by a person who had already ceased to hold the office conferring arbitral authority was void for want of jurisdiction, because the power to act depended on continued holding of that office. The executing court could examine that nullity under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, even without any prior direct challenge to the award, and treat the decree founded on it as inexecutable. An order refusing to treat the award-decree as a nullity and directing execution was appealable as it affected substantive rights. The award and the decree based on it were therefore held void. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309258