Madras High Court

M.Ravi vs Margadarsi Chits Private Limited on 3 June, 2025

Author: N. Sathish Kumar

Bench: N. Sathish Kumar

                                                                                          CRP NPD.No.1992 of 2025

                                   THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       Date : 03.06.2025

                                                             CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

                                    CRP NPD No.1992 of 2025 & CMP.No.11457 of 2025

                   M.Ravi                                                                . . . Petitioner

                                                         Versus

                   1. Margadarsi Chits Private Limited,
                      Rep. by its Foreman M.N.Prasad Babu,
                      III Floor, Kaashyap Enclave, Door No.13-A,
                      Velachery Main Road, Velachery,
                      Chennai – 600 042.

                   2. S.Vijayakumar
                   3. P.S.Navaneethan
                   4. S.Kathirvel
                   5. K.Vinoth
                   6. J.Umapathi
                   7. T.Selvaraj
                   8. N.Desika                                                           . . . Respondents

                   PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to allow
                   this Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Order dated 09.04.2025 passed
                   in E.A.No.1 of 2025 in E.P.No.47 of 2025 in ARC.No.409 of 2021 pending on
                   the file of the XXV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

                   Page 1 / 7




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 03:11:54 pm )
                                                                                         CRP NPD.No.1992 of 2025

                                   For petitioner        : Mr.N.Premkumar



                                                         ORDER

Challenge has been made against the Order passed by the execution

Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under section 47 of

Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that he only stood as a

guarantor. Whereas, the award has been passed not only against him but also

against the principal borrower and the others. It is his contention that the

properties of others had already been attached and those properties alone are

sufficient to satisfy the award amount. The award has been passed only for a

sum of Rs.32 lakhs. Whereas, the property attached is worth more than Rs.one

crore. Therefore, the trial Court ought not have dismissed the application filed

by the petitioner under section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 03:11:54 pm )

3. I have perused entire materials. The very filing of the application

under section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure questioning the award itself is not

maintainable in view of the judgment passed by this Court Sathish

Karthikeyan V Vs. Axis Bank Limited represented by its Manager in

C.R.P.(NPD) No.3808 of 2023, dated 13.11.2024, wherein this Court has

held that the grounds raised in the application under Section 47 can be raised

under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act while the award is

being challenged. Whereas in this case, without challenging the award, as a

matter of right, an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure

is not maintainable.

4. Further, the Apex Court has clearly held in Paramjeet Singh

Patheja v. ICDS Ltd reported in (2006) 13 SCC 322 that the section 36 of

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is for the limited purpose for facilitating

the execution of the arbitral award and the same cannot be stretched to equate

an arbitral award with a decree. The Apex Court has categorically held in the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 03:11:54 pm )

above judgment that the arbitral award is not a decree and has held as follows :

“Therefore, the words employed in Section 34 “recourse to

a court against an arbitral award may be made only by an

application for setting aside the award” make it clear that an

award has to be set aside only in the manner known to law as

provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996. As long as an aggrieved party to the award did not

challenge the award passed against him in the manner known to

law, the arbitral award shall be final and binding on the parties

and the persons claiming under them respectively. When a party

to the award had not chosen to challenge the award within the

time prescribed, such award shall be enforced in accordance with

the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner

as if it was a decree passed by the Civil Court. Therefore, as no

objection was raised and the respondent has waived the objection

and also did not choose to file any application under Section 34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 03:11:54 pm )

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to set aside

the award, such award has to be executed. Therefore, the

executing court cannot go into the validity of the arbitral award.

The issue of ineligibility of the arbitrator cannot be raised during

the pendency of the execution proceedings.”