ANIL MEHRA Vs. EAST INDIA WEAVING LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though application moved by the Judgement debtor is under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code seeking direction to the decree holder to deposit the decretal amount recovered by him by way of execution petition but the plea raised therein are in the form of objections as to the validity of the decree. In support of his contention that the decree is void ab initio and a nullity, he has raised the following points :-

(2.) Admittedly the applicant/judgment debtor is one of the Directors of East India weaving Company Limited. It is also not disputed that the applicant not only in the capacity of the Director but also in the individual capacity submitted himself to the arbitration proceedings. It is again not in dispute that the applicant preferred an application under Order 34 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 challenging the validity of the award as well as its binding nature. But the applicant/Judgment debtor did not pursue this application and withdrew the same in the mid way.

(3.) It appears that what the applicant could not achieve by way of application under Section 34 of the arbitration Act he wants to achieve through this application which is otherwise not maintainable. Section 34 of the Arbitration Act provides a party against whom the award has been made has a recourse to a court against an arbitral award. Under these provisions an arbitral award can be set aside by the court only when the party in making the application furnishes the following proof:-