The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently dismissed the revision petition, holding that a second execution petition for enforcing an award is not maintainable if the first was rejected on the ground that the award had not been set aside, solely because a signed copy was not filed with the application to set it aside under Section 34.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, M/s. Real Fab India Pvt. Ltd. obtained an award dated 25.10.2018 from the Andhra Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) against the respondent, M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL), for Rs. 11.79 crore plus interest under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). RINL filed a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (CAOP No.16 of 2019), contending that the Council lacked jurisdiction, the contract was a works contract not covered under the MSMED Act, and the award was unreasoned. The Special Court found merit in these grounds but dismissed the challenge solely because the award copy filed lacked the signatures of the Council members, rendering it incomplete. Meanwhile, the execution petition (CEP No.6 of 2019) filed by Real Fab was stayed. Post-dismissal of CAOP, the petitioner filed EA No.11 of 2024 seeking restoration of CEP No.6 of 2019, which was dismissed on 05.08.2024, holding the award inexecutable. No challenge was made to this order. Undeterred, Real Fab filed a fresh execution petition (CEP GR Nos. 1694 and 1772 of 2024), which was rejected by the Special Court as not maintainable.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the fresh execution was based on a signed copy of the award, and hence, the previous objection no longer survived. It was argued that the executing court cannot go behind the decree/award, relying on V.D. Modi v. R. Abdul Rehman.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents argued that the Special Court’s earlier finding that the award was inexecutable and without jurisdiction had attained finality. Hence, fresh execution was barred.
Observations of the Court:
The Court carefully reviewed the entire sequence of proceedings, noting that the Special Court had gone into the merits of the matter and recorded specific findings on crucial issues. It had categorically held that the Facilitation Council lacked jurisdiction as the contract in question was a works contract, excluded from the MSMED Act's purview.
Further, the Special Court found that the award was unreasoned and did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the Arbitration Act. Though the award was not set aside only due to a technical defect (absence of signatures), the findings on jurisdiction and merits were substantial and binding. The Court emphasised that these findings were never challenged and, therefore, had attained finality. It observed that allowing the petitioner to reinitiate execution proceedings merely based on filing a signed copy of the same award amounted to circumventing settled findings, which is legally impermissible.
It was also noted that the executing court has the duty to examine whether the decree or award placed before it is executable. The principle that the executing court cannot go behind the decree is not absolute. If the decree or award is void ab initio or passed by a forum lacking jurisdiction, the executing court must refuse to execute it. Referring to V.D. Modi’s case, the Court clarified that where the decree or award is inherently without jurisdiction or suffers from a fundamental flaw, the executing court is bound to examine it and cannot mechanically enforce it. The Court further referred to the principle of res judicata and observed that once a finding is rendered on the inexecutable nature of an award, the same issue cannot be reopened in subsequent execution proceedings. Repeated attempts to execute the same award, in the face of adverse findings, were held to be an abuse of process.
Additionally, the Court took note that the earlier execution petition was dismissed not merely on technical grounds but also considering the jurisdictional defect and other procedural irregularities. These findings formed the very basis of rejecting the execution, which could not be revisited. The Court concluded that the filing of a signed copy of the award did not cure the fatal defects of lack of jurisdiction and absence of reasoning. Hence, the Special Court rightly rejected the subsequent execution petitions.
The decision of the Court:
The Court dismissed the civil revision petition, upholding the Special Court’s order rejecting the second execution petition as not maintainable. It held that the prior findings and dismissal operated as res judicata.
Case Title: M/s. Real Fab India Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari
Case No.:Civil Revision Petition No. 2936 of 2024
Advocate for the Applicant: Sri Gopal S. Hegde, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Koneru Prabhakara Rao
Advocate for the Respondent: GP for Services-IV
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
