CRP/2428/2026 of V.Rajendran Vs M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company L on 25 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

Both these revision petitions are at the instance of the Judgment Debtors/award sufferers, aggrieved by the dismissal of their Execution Applications filed praying for the dismissal of the Execution Petitions in E.P. Nos.37 and 38 of 2021 on the file of the Sub Court, Avinashi.

2. I have heard Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions and Mr.D.Pradeepkumar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents/decree holders in both the revision petitions.

3. Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the petitioner has not been furnished with certified copy of the order till date and therefore, the petitioner is handicapped to challenge the award in a manner known to law. He would also point out that Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'Act'), which deals with enforcement of the awards, for which, time begins only after the expiry of the period provided for an award sufferer to challenge the award under Section 34. It is therefore, his contention that the Execution Petitions were premature and could not have been entertained in the first place.

4. Per contra, Mr.D.Pradeepkumar, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder would state that the petitioner had filed Section 34 petitions and the same were dismissed at the nascent stage, for non compliance of the conditional order passed by this Court. That apart, he would also state that an application for extension of time to comply with the conditional order was also dismissed, in fact, by me in Application No.2894 of 2024, by order dated 20.01.2025. It is therefore the contention of Mr.Pradeepkumar, that once the petitioner himself unsuccessfully challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, it is no longer open to him to now contend that the award cannot be enforced and that the Execution Petitions are premature in nature.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

6. The only question that falls for consideration in these revision petitions is as to whether, the Execution Petitions filed by the respondent are premature or not. In this regard, it is the submission of Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel that under Section 36 of the Act, enforcement proceedings cannot be initiated until the expiry of the time provided under Section 34 of the Act, for challenging an award. It is therefore his submission that when a copy of the award has not been furnished to the petitioner, the question of challenging the award under Section 34 of the Act, or enforcing the award under Section 36 does not and cannot arise. Though the said submissions sound attractive at first blush, on noticing the facts and circumstances, in the present case, I am unable to accept the said fanciful contentions.

7. Firstly, it is not a case where, the petitioner did not challenge the award, Section 34 petitions were in fact filed on the Original Side of this Court and this Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- to the credit of Arbitration OP within a period of four (4) weeks and only subject to payment of the said amount, the Registry was directed to number the OP. In fact, in and by the said order dated 31.01.2024, this Court also made it clear that the numbering of the OP would be without prejudice to the rights of the respondent to raise all objections with regard to limitation and maintainability of the OP itself.

Admittedly, the said conditional order was not complied with and therefore, the Section 34 challenge also stood defeated.

8. An attempt was made subsequently by filing Application No.2894 of 2024, which in fact was listed before me for hearing seeking waiver of the condition to deposit Rs.5,00,000/-, I dismiss the said application as not maintainable on 20.01.2025. Therefore, the challenge if any, to the award has been unsuccessful and the same has become final. However, in the Execution Petition in order to dismiss the Execution Petitions as premature, Execution Applications were filed, citing the very same reasons that the copy of the award has not been furnished and therefore, the Execution Petitions were premature. The said Execution applications have been dismissed by the Executing Court, as against which, the present revision petitions have been filed.

9. The bone of contention is that the award has not been served on the petitioner to enable him to challenge the same in a manner known to law. Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, no doubt mandates a copy of the arbitral award to be served on both parties to the arbitration proceedings. In fact, while dismissing the Execution Applications, Executing Court noticed that petitions had been filed under Section 34, seeking to set aside the award of the sole Arbitrator and therefore, the Executing Court cannot dismiss the Execution Petitions as not maintainable. The Executing Court also took note of the fact that, this Court had passed a conditional order directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- which conditional order was also not complied with.

10. Admittedly, the petitioner attempted to challenge the award by invoking Section 34 of the Act and therefore it is not open to the petitioner to contend that he was not served with a copy of the award. Without a copy of the award, a Section 34 petition itself could not have been filed. Having not taken advantage of the indulgence shown by this Court for entertaining the Section 34 petition, the petitioner cannot now seek for dismissal of the Execution Petitions, on the ground that the copy of the award has not been served on the petitioner. Having failed and being unsuccessful in the Section 34 proceedings, it is no longer open to the petitioner to contend that enforcement proceedings cannot be taken against the petitioner. The object and purport of Section 36, postponing the initiation of enforcement proceedings is only to enable the award sufferer to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In the instant case, as already found, the petitioner attempted to challenge the award, but was unsuccessful on account of his own default in not complying the conditional order passed by this Court.

11. In such circumstances, I am unable to countenance the submissions of Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the Execution Petitions are premature since award copies have not been furnished to the petitioner till date. In view of the above, I do not see any material error or irregularity committed by the Executing Court in dismissing the Execution Applications filed by the petitioner, seeking dismissal of the Execution Petitions.

12. In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs.

25-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The Subordinate Judge, Avinashi.

P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP Pre-delivery Order in CRP. Nos.2428 & 2429 of 2026 and CMP. Nos.10350 & 10351 of 2026 25-09-2026