Bombay High Court
Council Of Scientific And Industrial ... vs Divinet Access Technologies Ltd. on 22 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:56952
1-WP-5643-2022.docx
rrpillai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5643 OF 2022
Council of Scientific and ... Petitioner
Industrial Research
Vs.
Divinet Access Technologies Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr. K. P. Anil Kumar a/w. Ms. Priyanka Kumar for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Nitin Padmakar Deshpande a/w. Ms. Rachana Harpale
and Mr. Santosh Kurade for the Respondent.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 22nd DECEMBER 2025
ORDER :
1. By consent, this petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. This petition is filed by the original claimant in an arbitration proceeding to challenge the order passed by the civil court, returning the execution petition for presentation before the proper court at New Delhi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award in the arbitration proceedings was passed in favour of the petitioner on 31st May 2013 at New Delhi. As the Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date:
2025.12.23 1/8
13:37:05 +0530 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2025 20:40:49 ::: 1-WP-5643-2022.docx respondent's property is situated within the jurisdiction of the Pune court, the execution petition to recover the amount was filed before the Pune court. However, the executing court has returned the execution petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue regarding the execution of the award and the jurisdiction of the civil court is settled by the Apex Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Limited vs Abdul Samad and Anr1. He relies upon the legal principles settled by the Apex Court in paragraph 19 of the judgment holding that while an award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is deemed to be a decree under Section 36 of the said Act, there was no deeming fiction anywhere to hold that the court within whose jurisdiction the arbitral award was passed should be taken to be the court, which passed the decree. He submits that the Apex Court further concluded that an award may be enforced by execution anywhere in the country where such a decree can be executed, and there is no requirement to obtain a transfer of the decree from the court that would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. 1 (2018) 3 SCC 622 2/8 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2025 20:40:49 ::: 1-WP-5643-2022.docx
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that even if the arbitral award was passed by the Arbitral Tribunal that conducted the proceedings in Delhi, the award can be executed by the civil court at Pune, within whose jurisdiction the property of the respondent is situated. He further submits that the legal principles settled by the Apex Court were not brought to the notice of the learned executing court. The executing court has relied on the decision of this Court in L & T Finance Ltd. v. Kajal Kumar Das and Anr 2. In the said decision, it was held that as the application for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act was filed in another court, all other proceedings must follow there. Hence, the decree/award was transferred to the competent court in Kolkata. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that in view of the well-settled legal principles by the Apex Court, the impugned order would warrant interference by this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the objection to the territorial jurisdiction was raised in view of Section 42 of the Arbitration Act and the decision of this Court in the case of L & T Finance Ltd. He, therefore, 2 (2014) SCC OnLine Bom 1797 3/8 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2025 20:40:49 ::: 1-WP-5643-2022.docx submits that based on the decisions relied upon by the parties, the executing court has correctly returned the execution petition for presenting it before the appropriate court at Delhi.
7. I have perused the papers of the petition. The initial facts, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are not disputed. The executing court has refused to proceed with execution solely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, holding that the award was made outside the court's territorial limits. There is no dispute that the award is sought to be executed, as the respondent's properties are situated within the jurisdiction of the civil court at Pune.
8. By the award under execution, the respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1877.50 lakhs. The copy of the execution application annexed to the petition shows that the execution is filed on the ground that the respondent's properties are situated within the jurisdiction of the civil court at Pune.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sundaram Finance Limited (supra.) held that an award under the Arbitration Act is deemed to be a decree as per Section 36 of the Arbitration 4/8 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2025 20:40:49 ::: 1-WP-5643-2022.docx Act. The Apex Court, in paragraph 14 of the judgment, held that the provisions of Section 36 of the Arbitration Act show that an award is to be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court. It is thus held that the enforcement mechanism is akin to the enforcement of a decree, but the award itself is not a decree of the civil court, as the civil court passes no decree whatsoever. However, it is the Arbitral Tribunal that renders an award, and the tribunal does not have the power of execution. Hence, for the purpose of execution of a decree, the award is to be enforced in the same manner as if it was a decree under the said Code. With reference to the issue of jurisdiction, the Apex Court referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs. Sivakama Sundari 3 and held in paragraph 19 as under
"19. The Madras High Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Sivakama Sundari referred to Section 46 of the said Code, which spoke of precepts but stopped at that. In the context of the Code, thus, the view adopted is that the decree of a civil court is liable to be executed 3 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 1290 5/8 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2025 20:40:49 ::: 1-WP-5643-2022.docx primarily by the court, which passes the decree where an execution application has to be filed at the first instance. An award under Section 36 of the said Act, is equated to a decree of the court for the purposes of execution and only for that purpose. Thus, it was rightly observed that while an award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is deemed to be a decree under Section 36 of the said Act, there was no deeming fiction anywhere to hold that the court within whose jurisdiction the arbitral award was passed should be taken to be the court, which passed the decree. The said Act actually transcends all territorial barriers."
10. Thus, considering the issue of jurisdiction and the enforcement of an award as contemplated under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, the Apex Court concluded that the enforcement of an award through its execution can be filed anywhere in the country where such decree can be executed and there is no requirement for obtaining a transfer of the decree from the court, which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. Hence, in view of the legal principles settled by the Apex Court, the view taken by the executing court, by relying upon the decisions of the Delhi High Court and the decision of this Court, would not be sustainable. 6/8 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2025 20:40:49 :::
1-WP-5643-2022.docx
11. Therefore, in light of the legal principles settled by the Apex Court in Sundaram Finance Limited (supra.), the impugned order warrants interference in the exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
12. In any case, the executing court could not have returned the execution petition for presentation to the proper court in view of Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"). If the executing court found that the decree is necessary to be executed by another court of competent jurisdiction, the executing court can transfer the decree in view of Section 39 of the CPC. Hence, there was no reason for the executing court to return the execution petition for presentation before the court in New Delhi.
13. In view of the settled principles by the Apex Court in the case of Sundram Finance Limited the execution petition filed before the civil court at Pune would be maintainable before that court as the civil court at Pune will have jurisdiction to proceed with the execution. Hence, this is a fit case to exercise power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is 7/8 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2025 20:40:49 ::: 1-WP-5643-2022.docx allowed by passing the following order :
(i) The impugned order dated 24 th February 2021 passed by the learned District Judge I, Pune, in Darkhast No. 1556 of 2014 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) Darkhast No. 1556 of 2014 is restored to the file of the District Judge I, Pune, for deciding it on merits.
(iii) The Arbitration Award under execution is dated 31st May 2013. Hence, the executing court shall endeavour to decide the execution petition as early as possible.
(iv) Parties shall co-operate for early disposal of the execution petition and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment.
[GAURI GODSE, J.] 8/8 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2025 20:40:49 :::