Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd vs Sivakama Sundari S Narayana S B Murthy on 26 August, 2011
19. The Madras High Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v.
Sivakama Sundari, 2011 SCC Online Mad 1290 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 primarily by the Court, which passes the decree
where an execution application has to be filed at the first
______________________________________________________________________________
Page No.34 of 66
12 August 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:41:07 :::
Neeta Sawant APP-104-109-2019-FC
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.