Apex Court: It would not be proper to defer execution merely because appeal under Section 37 is pending

Recently, the Supreme Court held that pendency of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be a ground for deferring execution proceedings in the absence of a stay order. The matter arose from a challenge to the execution of an arbitral award before the Delhi High Court, and the Court observed that, “it would not be proper for the Execution Court to defer consideration of the execution application only because an appeal is pending.”

In this case, an arbitral award had been challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, but the objection was rejected. An appeal under Section 37 was thereafter filed against the rejection. Despite no stay order being granted on the award, the Delhi High Court, acting as the executing court, adjourned the execution proceedings citing the pendency of the appeal. Aggrieved by this, the decree-holder approached the Apex Court.

Counsel for the parties were not in dispute on the fact that no interim stay operated against the arbitral award. However, the respondents contended that certain objections regarding executability had been raised, and therefore, the execution ought not to proceed until the appeal under Section 37 was decided. The petitioner, on the other hand, argued that in the absence of a stay order, the execution could not be stalled merely on account of pendency of the appeal.

The Bench noted that the execution court is empowered to examine issues relating to executability in accordance with law as and when objections are raised. However, it stressed that the pendency of an appeal under Section 37, without any interim order, cannot by itself justify deferment of the execution process. The Court categorically observed, “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.”

Disposing of the appeal, the Apex Court held that subject to any interim order that may be passed in the pending appeal, the executing Court is free to proceed with the execution of the award strictly in accordance with law. It further clarified that any objections as to executability must be duly considered by the court after affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties. With these directions, the appeal and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Title: Chakardhari Sureka vs. Prem Lata Sureka Through Spa & Ors.

Case No.: SLP (C) No. 20480 of 2025

Coram: Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Kunal Kalra, Kanika Bansal, Ayush Anand (AOR), Monu Kumar, Ritu Raj

Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Malvika Trivedi (Sr. Adv.), Sachin Yadav, Sangeeta Vazirani, Deepak Joshi (AOR), Shivam Yadav, Sanjay Sharma, Nadeem Saifi

Read Order @LatestLaws.com