NAVIGATING EXECUTION AMIDST PENDING APPEALS: THE AUTHORITY OF COURTS UNDER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No. 11840/2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 20480 of 2025) – Chakardhari Sureka v. Prem Lata Sureka through SPA & Ors., addressed a critical issue concerning the execution of arbitral awards amidst pending appeals. The Judgement was delivered on 15th September 2025 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. The Court examined whether an Execution Court should defer execution proceedings solely due to an appeal pending under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after an objection under Section 34 against the arbitral award had already been rejected.

 

BRIEF FACTS

The Appellant, Chakardhari Sureka, challenged an Order of the High Court of Delhi which had adjourned execution proceedings on the basis that an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was pending. Prior to this, the Respondent had filed an objection under Section 34, challenging the arbitral award, which was duly rejected. Despite the rejection, the Respondents contended that execution should not proceed, citing pending appellate proceedings.

The Decree-Holder initiated execution of the award, but the High Court deferred the hearing, causing the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

 

ISSUES OF LAW

The Supreme Court examined the following key legal issues:

• Whether an Execution Court is required to defer execution of an arbitral award merely because an appeal under Section 37 is pending.
• The scope of the Execution Court’s authority to consider objections to the executability of an award, notwithstanding a pending appeal.
• Whether the absence of an interim order against the arbitral award impacts the Court’s ability to proceed with execution.

 

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court observed that the Execution Court has the statutory authority to proceed with execution unless an interim order stays the operation of the arbitral award. The Court emphasized that:

Pending Appeals Do Not Automatically Stay Execution: A mere pendency of an appeal under Section 37 cannot be a ground to defer execution if no stay is in place. The execution process and appellate review are distinct proceedings under the Act.

Executability Can Be Examined Concurrently: The Court clarified that the Execution Court retains the power to examine objections regarding executability as and when they are raised, without being prejudiced by the ongoing appeal. This ensures that the decree-holder is not unduly delayed in enforcing rights recognized by the arbitral award.

Opportunity to Object: Respondents are entitled to raise objections concerning the executability of the award and the Execution Court must address them in accordance with law, after providing a fair hearing.

The Supreme Court concluded that deferring execution solely because of a pending appeal is impermissible, reinforcing the principle that arbitral awards, once declared enforceable, must not be stalled arbitrarily.

 

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court, in Chakardhari Sureka v. Prem Lata Sureka, reiterated the clear distinction between execution proceedings and appellate remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgement affirms that:

• Execution Courts can proceed with enforcing arbitral awards even if appeals under Section 37 are pending.
• Objections regarding executability should be addressed within execution proceedings, ensuring both parties have a fair hearing.
• Pending appeals cannot be used as a procedural tactic to delay enforcement of a valid arbitral award.

 

This decision strengthens the efficacy of arbitral awards in India and ensures that the enforcement mechanism is not hampered by procedural delays in appellate proceedings.

 

YASH HARI DIXIT

Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

 

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “MSMEs in India 2025 | Delayed Payments | Supreme Court Judgments by Advocate Sushila Ram Varma” can be viewed at the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me1xbu40OrM&t=24s