SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED versus ABDUL SAMAD & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 451 · Decided: 15-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
451
SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED
v.
ABDUL SAMAD & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1650 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 15, 2018
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.36, 32, 42 and
2(e) – Whether an award under the Act is required to be first filed in
the court having jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings for
execution and then to obtain transfer of the decree or whether the
award can be straightway filed and executed in the Court where
the assets are located – Held: s.36 of the Act shows that an award is
to be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure in the same manner as if it were a decree – The
enforcement of an award through its execution can be filed anywhere
in the country where such decree can be executed and there is no
requirement for obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court,
which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings – Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 – ss.38,39,46 and Or.XXI, rr.6, 11(2).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The section 36 states that an award is to be
enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure in the same manner as if it were a decree.  It is, thus,
the enforcement mechanism, which is akin to the enforcement of
a decree but the award itself is not a decree of the civil court as
no decree whatsoever is passed by the civil court. It is the arbitral
tribunal, which renders an award and the tribunal does not have
the power of execution of a decree.  For the purposes of execution
of a decree the award is to be enforced in the same manner as if
it was a decree under the said Code. [Para 15] [462-D-E]
2. The enforcement of an award through its execution can
be filed anywhere in the country where such decree can be
executed and there is no requirement for obtaining a transfer of
the decree from the Court, which would have jurisdiction over
the arbitral proceedings. [Para 22] [464-G]
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 451
                                                     451
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
452
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd.
2009 159 DLT 579; Maharashtra Apex Corporation
Limited v. V. Balaji G. & Anr. 2011 (4) KLJ 408; Kotak
Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Sivakama Sundari & Ors. (2011)
4 LW 745; Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Ram Sharan
Gurjar & Anr. (2012) 1 RLW 960; GE Money Financial
Services Ltd. v. Mohd. Azaz & Anr. 2013 SCC OnLine
All 13365 = (2013) 100 ALR 766; Indusind Bank Ltd.
v. Bhullar Transport Company MANU/PH/2896/2012;
Sri Chandrashekhar v. Tata Motor finance Ltd. & Ors.
(2015) 1 AIR Kant R 261 – approved.
Computer Sciences Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. v.
Harishchandra Lodwal & Anr. AIR 2006 Madhya
Pradesh 34; Jasvinder Kaur & Anr. v. Tata Motor
Finance Limited CMPMO No. 56/2013 decided on
17.9.2013 – disapproved.
Swastik Gases Private Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation
Limited JT 2013 (10) SC 35; I.C.D.S. Ltd. v. Mangala
Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2001 Karnataka 364 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
AIR 2006 Madhya Pradesh 34
disapproved
Para 5
JT 2013 (10) SC 35
referred to
Para 5
AIR 2001 Karnataka 364
referred to
Para 5
2009 159 DLT 579
approved
Para 5
2011 (4) KLJ 408
approved
Para 5
(2011) 4 LW 745
approved
Para 5
(2012) 1 RLW 960
approved
Para 5
(2015) 1 AIR Kant R 261
approved
Para 5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1650
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2014 of the District
Judge, Morena, Madhya Pradesh in Execution Case No. 108/2011/13
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
453
Balaji Srinivasan, Ms. Pratiksha Mishra, Mayank Khirsagar,
Vaishnavi Subrahmanyam, Abhishek Bharti, Advs. for the Appellant.
Prashant Shukla, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Osama Ahmad Abbasi,
Ms. Anushree Mishra, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. 1. The divergence of legal opinion
of different High Courts on the question as to whether an award under
the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘said Act’) is required to be first filed in the court having jurisdiction
over the arbitration proceedings for execution and then to obtain transfer
of the decree or whether the award can be straightway filed and executed
in the Court where the assets are located is required to be settled in the
present appeal.
Facts:
2. The appellant claims that the first respondent approached the
appellant for grant of a loan for purchase of a Tata Lorry-HCV 2005
mod

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.