A debtor who unsuccessfully invoked Section 34 cannot resist enforcement as premature for non-service of the award.

The petitioner, a judgment debtor, challenged the dismissal of applications seeking dismissal of the respondent’s execution petitions as premature.

He argued that he had not been served with copies of the arbitral awards and that enforcement under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could not begin before the time to challenge the awards under Section 34 had expired

The petitioner had filed Section 34 petitions, but the High Court directed him to deposit ₹5,00,000 within four weeks as a condition for numbering them; he did not comply.

His later application seeking waiver of that condition was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Executing Court dismissed his applications to halt execution, leading to these revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the execution petitions were premature because the petitioner claimed not to have received copies of the arbitral awards and the Section 34 challenge period had not expired

2. Whether the petitioner could rely on non-service of the awards to resist enforcement after having attempted to challenge them under Section 34 but failing to comply with the conditional order

Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires delivery of a signed copy of the arbitral award to each party

Section 34 provides the mechanism and period for challenging an arbitral award; Section 36 governs enforcement and postpones enforcement to allow an award debtor an opportunity to make that challenge

The Court treated the purpose of Section 36’s postponement as having been fulfilled where the petitioner had attempted a Section 34 challenge but the challenge failed because he did not comply with the conditional order

The revisions were considered under Article 227 of the Constitution

The Court accepted that Section 31(5) requires service of the award, but held that the petitioner’s assertion of non-service could not support dismissal of the execution petitions in the circumstances.

His filing of Section 34 petitions showed that he had attempted to challenge the awards; those proceedings did not progress because he failed to make the deposit required by the conditional order, and his later request to waive that condition was dismissed

The Court reasoned that Section 36 exists to preserve an opportunity to challenge an award, and the petitioner had attempted to use that opportunity but was unsuccessful through his own default.

It therefore rejected his argument that enforcement remained premature

Both civil revision petitions and the connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed; no costs were ordered.