LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Suresh (Owner)     04 March 2010

Execution of award

There is an application under section 34 filed by the judgement-debtor in High court with the limits of the act.But, He has not paid the court fee. There were already 4 listing completed on the above petition. I have not started any execution as the time under section 34 has completed.

Query: 1) Can I start execution as the judgement-debtor has not paid the court fee?

2)How long High court would give time to the petitioner to pay the court fee. How should I tell the court to dismiss the petition?

3) As the application is in pre-admission stage could I go ahead and start the execution as there is no stay or application accepted in the High court?

Please respond me asap.


 4 Replies

rajasekaran (director)     17 April 2012

Why court fee for AC Act 1996 section 34 application seeking to set aside the award? 

If the award is passed under Micro Small Industries ,MSMED Act then there is a predeposit but in otherwise cases pl verify the substantive law under which award is passed.

In normal cases AC Act 1996 section 34 application operates as a stay in execution petition. 

Advocate Bhartesh goyal (advocate)     21 April 2012

Dear Suresh

Objections u/s 34 of   Arb and Con Act,  agaist Award passed under  Act 1996 is filed before district judge having jurisdiction and not before High Court. If  opposite party filed such objections before High Court then the same are not maintainable and will be dismissed at the stage of admission.You can file execution petition and get execute Award.

Saurendra Rautray (advocate)     23 August 2012

Dear Sir,

Filing of section-34 is an automatic stay of execution petition to be filed in the court having jurisdiction. If it has been filed in high court for ex- like in delhi, Kolkatta high court, where the High court's*xercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction . So please see where the said application is filed and if it is filed in High court which does not exercise the above same then such application is not maintainable and the same has to be filed in the concerned District Court under which the LIS is pending, refer the agreement and other aspect of the agreement. Mere conducting of arbitration at a certain place also would not confer jurisdiction. The court can ask the JDR tp pay the court fee and if the same has not been paid even after 4 hearing dates, do pray that the JDR is trying to frustrate the process of law and tantamounts to abuse of process of law and one can say that the JDR is resorting to dialatory tactics to delay and hence prayer must be made to dismiss the same with cost.

Please note if the High court does not have the power to hear the matter and it has to be filed in District court one can surely file Execution case. Please also take a note that the JDR can take the help of section 14 of limitation act and can withdraw his application or even if it is dismissed he can file the same in the right forum.

rajasekaran (director)     24 August 2012


1. Suggest you file an execution  petition as advised by experts as above, and indicating the pending proceedings in the EP. Unless and until it is an application under 34 of Arbitration Act filed within time it shall not act as stay of EP proceedings.

2. Even assuming there are pending proceedings , the bonafides whether in wrong court  and whether being prosecuted  with due diligence will be determined to exclude time spent in such proceeding, under sec 14 of limitation Act as laid down case of Deena v. Bharat Singh through Lrs. and Ors reported in AIR 2002 SC 2768, that despite issues of non-maintainability being raised very early in litigation, if the person continues to prosecute, he cannot be said to have acted in good faith taking due care and attention.

3.Citing this judgment of the apex court, the Delhi High Court held in Satnam Singh v. Pamela Manmohan Singh & Ors reported in CM(M) 1290 of 2008 as follows:

“Where a person is deliberately pursuing a remedy before a wrong court, the only inference can be drawn is that the intention of the person is to delay the proceedings. No inference  can be drawn that he was diligently pursuing the remedy before a wrong court. Therefore, benefit of section 14 could not have been given by the trial court even under Section 5”


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register