Case: Sundaram Finance Limited Vs. Abdul Samad &amp; Another

4. The case of the appellant is that the award being enforceable as a decree under Section 36 of the said Act, execution proceedings were filed in the jurisdiction of the courts at Morena, Madhya Pradesh under Section 47 read with Section 151 and Order 21 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code). The respondents sought to contest the proceedings inter alia on the ground that the vehicle against which the loan was obtained was stolen. It is not necessary to go into further details of the proceedings but suffice to say that the trial court vide order dated 20.3.2014 return the execution application on account of lack of jurisdiction to be presented to the court of competent jurisdiction. The effect of the judgment was that the appellant was required to file the execution proceedings first before the court of competent jurisdiction in Tamil Nadu, obtain a transfer of the decree and then only could the proceedings be filed in the trial court at Morena. This view adopted by the trial court was in turn based on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the opinion of the Karnataka High Court while it is pleaded that the view of the Rajasthan High Court and the Delhi High Court were to the contrary. The petitioner did not approach the High Court against the said order of the trial court but straightway approached this Court by filing the Special Leave Petition on the ground that no useful purpose would be served by approaching the Madhya Pradesh High Court in light of the view already expressed by that Court in conflict with the opinions of some other High Courts.

Reasoning:
15. The aforesaid provision would show that an award is to be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the said code 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.The aforesaid provision provides for arbitral proceedings to be terminated by the final arbitral award. Thus, when an award is already made, of which execution is sought, the arbitral proceedings already stand terminated on the making of the final award. Thus, it is not appreciated how Section 42 of the said Act, which deals with the jurisdiction issue in respect of arbitral proceedings, would have any relevance. It does appear that the provisions of the said Code and the said Act have been mixed up.20. It is in the aforesaid context that the view adopted by the Delhi High Court in Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. (supra) records that Section 42 of the Act would not apply to an execution application, which is not an arbitral proceeding and that Section 38 of the Code would apply to a decree passed by the Court, while in the case of an award no court has passed the decree.21. The Madras High Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Sivakama Sundari & Ors. (supra) referred to Section 46 of the said Code, which spoke of precepts but stopped at that. In the context of the Code, thus, the view adopted is that the decree of a civil court is liable to be executed primarily by the Court, which passes the decree where an execution application has to be filed at the first instance. An award under Section 36 of the said Act, is equated to a decree of the Court for the purposes of execution and only for that purpose. Thus, it was rightly observed that while an award passed by the arbitral tribunal is deemed to be a decree under Section 36 of the said Act, there was no deeming fiction anywhere to hold that the Court within whose jurisdiction the arbitral award was passed should be taken to be the Court, which passed the decree. The said Act actually transcends all territorial barriers.Conclusion:22. We are, thus, unhesitatingly of the view that 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.23. The effect of the aforesaid is that the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Himachal Pradesh High Court is held to be not good in law while the views of Delhi High Court, Kerala High Court, Madras High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Allahabad High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court and Karnataka High Court reflect the correct legal position, for the reasons we have recorded aforesaid.