| |
CDJ 2026 Ker HC 267
|
| Court : High Court of Kerala |
| Case No : AR Nos.16, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANU |
| Parties : Manappuram Asset Finance Ltd Thrissur Rep. By The Authorized Officer C.K. Sujesh Kannur & Another Versus A.B. Abdul Saleem & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: C.K. Sreejith, Namitha Jyothish, Shaji Katayaprath, Sujith K. Mohanan, Kozhipurath Praseetha Gopalakrishnan, G. Akhil Alphonse, G. Suresh, Advocates. For the Respondents: --- |
| Date of Judgment : 06-02-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. - Section 21 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 KER 10794,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Section 21
2. Catch Words:
- arbitration
- arbitration clause
- arbitral award
- execution
- unenforceable
- nullity
- fresh notice
- Section 21
3. Summary:
The Court notes that all arbitration requests arise from identical loan agreements containing arbitration clauses, leading to arbitral proceedings and awards. Execution courts dismissed the petitions, deeming the awards unenforceable because arbitrators were appointed unilaterally, effectively rendering the awards null. Relying on *M/s. Agro Indus Credits Limited v. Mangalan*, the Court holds that once an award is declared unenforceable, a fresh request under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is required to commence new arbitral proceedings. No fresh notices were issued after the dismissals, rendering the current arbitration requests premature. Consequently, the requests are closed, but petitioners may issue fresh notices and approach the Court again if needed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
Common Order:
1. In all these Arbitration Requests, the factual circumstances are identical. All the loan agreements, in all these cases, contain an arbitration clause. Invoking the arbitration clauses, arbitral proceedings were initiated. Awards were passed by the Arbitrators. The petitioners in all these cases sought execution of the award by approaching the Civil Courts concerned. Execution Courts dismissed the Execution Petitions holding that the awards were unenforceable. The rationale for this was that the appointment of arbitrators in all these cases was unilateral. The declarations made by the Execution Courts in all these cases is virtually to the effect that the awards were non est in the eye of law.
2. In M/s.Agro Indus Credits Limited v. Mangalan [2026(1) KLT 1] this Court held that once an arbitration award is set aside or declared as nullity, to initiate fresh arbitral proceedings, it is indispensable to make a fresh request as contemplated under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3. Once the arbitral award is declared as unenforceable/nullity in the eye of law by a competent court, even during execution proceedings, the impact of such a finding is akin to that of setting aside an award. The outcome remains the same. The award loses its legal sanctity, becomes inoperative and loses all its force. Under such circumstances, also, declaration of law in M/s.Agro Indus Credits Limited would squarely apply. Therefore, if the execution court finds that an arbitral award is unenforceable and invalid for any reason, in order to initiate fresh arbitral proceedings, it is essential to make a fresh request/issue fresh notice as contemplated under Section 21 of the Act, 1996.
4. In all these cases, after dismissal of the Execution Petitions, no fresh notices were issued to the respondents. Therefore, these Arbitration Requests are premature. Accordingly, they are closed.
5. However, it will be open to the petitioners to issue fresh notice to the respondents and seek recourse to this Court again, if required.
Arbitration Requests are disposed of as above.
|
| |
