Chakardhari Sureka vs Prem Lata Sureka - Arbitration Award - Execution
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34,37 -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. (Para 6)
Case Info
The case is Chakardhari Sureka v. Prem Lata Sureka, decided on 15 September 2025 by Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Case Name and Neutral Citation
- Case Name: Chakardhari Sureka v. Prem Lata Sureka Through SPA & Ors.
- Neutral Citation: Not explicitly provided in the order. (Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 11840/2025 @ SLP (C) No. 20480 of 2025, decided on 15 September 2025)
Coram
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judgment Date
- 15 September 2025
Caselaws and Citations
- Caselaws/Citations:The order does not cite or refer to any previous case law or judicial precedents directly in the text.
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Section 34: Application for setting aside arbitral award
- Section 37: Appeal against orders under Section 34
Q&A
Q1: What was the main legal issue addressed by the Supreme Court in this case?
A1: The central legal issue was whether the Execution Court should defer the execution proceedings of an arbitral award solely because an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is pending against the rejection of an application under Section 34, in the absence of any interim stay order on the award.
Q2: What is the effect of a pending appeal under Section 37 without a stay order on the execution of an arbitral award?
A2: The Supreme Court clarified that the mere pendency of an appeal under Section 37 does not automatically stay the execution of an arbitral award. The Execution Court is not required to defer execution proceedings unless there is an explicit interim order staying the award.
Q3: Can objections regarding the executability of the arbitral award be raised during execution proceedings?
A3: Yes, the Court stated that objections to the executability of the award can be raised before the Execution Court, which must address such objections in accordance with law after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard.
Q4: What directions did the Supreme Court give to the Execution Court regarding ongoing execution proceedings?
A4: The Supreme Court directed that, subject to any interim order passed in the pending Section 37 appeal, the Execution Court is free to proceed with the execution of the award and must consider any objections raised regarding executability as per law.
Q5: Which sections of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are relevant to the case?
A5: Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are central to the case. Section 34 deals with applications to set aside arbitral awards, while Section 37 provides for appeals against orders under Section 34.