Arbitration | Execution Of Award Cannot Be Stalled Merely Due To Pendency Of Section 37 Appeal : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the execution of an arbitral award cannot be stalled merely on the ground that an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is pending.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the case where the appellant (award-holder/decree-holder) sought execution of the arbitral award. The respondents (judgment-debtors) argued that since a Section 37 appeal was pending against the dismissal of their Section 34 objections, the execution should be deferred.

Aggrieved by the Delhi High Court's decision to adjourn the executing proceedings because the appeal under Section 37 was pending, the award holder approached the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Court emphasized that pendency of a Section 37 appeal does not, by itself, operate as a stay against execution of an arbitral award.

Unless there is an express interim order staying enforcement, the award-holder retains the right to proceed with execution, the court added.

“In our view, the question of executability of the award can be gone into by the Execution Court in accordance with law while addressing objections as and when raised. However, it would not be proper for the Execution Court to defer consideration of the execution application and the objections thereto only because an appeal is pending under Section 37 when there is no interim order operating against the award against which objection under Section 34 of the Act stands rejected.”, the court observed.

“we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal by observing that subject to any interim order passed in the appeal pending under Section 37 of the Act, the Execution Court shall be free to proceed with the execution of the award in accordance with law. Needless to observe that if any objection is raised as regards executability of the award, the same shall be addressed in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.”, the court added.

Cause Title: CHAKARDHARI SUREKA VERSUS PREM LATA SUREKA THROUGH SPA & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 919

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kunal Kalra, Adv. Ms. Kanika Bansal, Adv. Mr. Ayush Anand, AOR Mr. Monu Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms Malvika Trivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr Sachin Yadav, Adv. Ms Sangeeta Vazirani, Adv. Mr Deepak Joshi, AOR Mr Shivam Yadav, Adv. Mr Sanjay Sharma, Adv. Mr Nadeem Saifi, Adv.