A civil revision petition was filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against an order dated 18-09-2026 by II District Judge, Indore, whereby the petitioner’s application under Section 47 read with Section 151 of CPC for dismissal of the execution petition was rejected.
Respondent 1 filed an arbitration case before the Arbitration Board of Shrimant Maharaja Tukojirao Cloth Market Merchant Association, and an award was passed in its favour on 16-06-2023 for recovery of an amount against M/s. Mangal Creation, through its proprietor (petitioner). Respondent 1 preferred execution, and an attachment order was issued. From that attachment order, the petitioner came to know that the arbitration case had been filed against M/s. Mangal Creation, showing him as its proprietor. The petitioner claimed that he was not the proprietor of any such firm, that he had not carried on business in that name and style, that he had not purchased any material from respondent 1, and that no amount was due from him. He also alleged that no notice of the arbitral proceeding was ever served on him and that the notice was published in a newspaper without adequate circulation in the city, so that an ex-parte award could be obtained.
The petitioner filed an application under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the CPC for dismissal of the execution petition, along with the Shop Establishment Registration Certificate and other documents of M/s. Mangal Creation. The II District Judge acting as the Executing Court, dismissed the application by the impugned order, reasoning that the petitioner was under an obligation to appear before the Arbitration Board and raise the objection there, and also issued the attachment warrant against him. Hence, the present petition.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vinay Saraf noted the petitioner’s arguments that the objections filed under Section 47 were filed after considering the law laid down in Electrosteel Steel Limited v. Ispat Carrier Pvt. Ltd. 2025 INSC 525, which permits the filing of an objection if an award is nullity or the arbitration tribunal has no jurisdiction. However, noting that the objections had not been preferred regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, the Court stated that the petitioner ought to have filed the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for setting aside the arbitral award. It was stated that except the objection of nullity, all other objections are required to be raised under Section 34.
Further, the Court noted that even though the petitioner could file an objection under Section 34, the issue was that the limitation for filing the objection had expired. It was stated that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, but if the party has raised an objection to the arbitration award in a bona fide manner before a court not having jurisdiction to entertain the objections, the time spent in prosecuting those objections are liable to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
It was noted that the Supreme Court had held that as the substantive remedy under Section 34 and/or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act are by their very nature limited in their scope due to statutory prescription, it is necessary to interpret the limitation provisions liberally, or else, even that limited window to challenge an arbitral award will be lost. The Court held that the time spent from filing Section 47 application by the petitioner till today should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, while calculating the period for filing objection under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act under Section 34.
Hence, the petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file objections under Section 34 before the competent court and directed for the period from filing of Section 47 application till the decision of this petition to be excluded for calculating the limitation for filing the Section 34 application. Thus, the petition was disposed of.
