Section 47 CPC Objections Not Maintainable Against Arbitral Awards Under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Overview

Case Name: State of U.P. and Others Vs Shri Raj Veer Singh
Court: Allahabad High Court
Matter: Matters Under Article 227 No. 6346 of 2022
Date of Order: 16/04/2026

Background and Factual Matrix

The State of Uttar Pradesh and certain other petitioners approached the Allahabad High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging orders passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bijnor (dated May 17, 2022) and the Commercial Court, Moradabad (dated July 21, 2022 and August 2, 2022).

The genesis of the dispute lay in a construction contract executed between the State of Uttar Pradesh and Shri Raj Veer Singh for the construction of cross drainage and a siphon at Km 5.355 of the main canal under the Madhya Ganga Canal Phase-II Project in District Bijnor. Contractual disputes emerged between the parties, and in accordance with Clauses 42 and 43 of the contract, the matter was referred to arbitration.

Shri A.K. Gupta, functioning as Sole Arbitrator, rendered an arbitral award on December 12, 2013 in favour of the contractor (the Respondent). The State challenged this award by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the District Judge, Bijnor. That application was rejected on April 9, 2014.

The State then filed a first appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed on December 22, 2016. A Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed on account of delay on November 2, 2018, and a subsequent review petition was also dismissed on January 15, 2019. Having exhausted every available remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the contractor filed an execution application under Section 36 of the Act in 2019.

During enforcement proceedings, the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bijnor, directed the State Bank of India, Main Branch Nazeebabad, Bijnor to freeze the bank account of the Executive Engineer, Madhya Ganga Canal Construction Division – 7 Bijnor and restrain any withdrawals therefrom. The execution application was thereafter transferred to the Commercial Court, Moradabad, which on July 21, 2022, directed the State to make payment of the awarded amount along with interest on or before August 10, 2022.

At this stage, the State filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the Commercial Court, Moradabad. Those objections were rejected on August 2, 2022, prompting the instant writ petition before the Allahabad High Court.

Contentions of the Petitioners (State of U.P.)

The State, represented by the learned Additional Advocate General, advanced the following arguments:

  • The Chief Engineer had, vide letter dated July 26, 2011, forwarded the names of three superintending engineers — none associated with the work under the contract — to the Respondent for selection as Sole Arbitrator. However, the Respondent, through letters dated August 4, 2011 and August 8, 2011, nominated Shri A.K. Singh from its own independently maintained list sent to the State on July 23, 2011. This was asserted to be contrary to the arbitration clause.

  • The name of Shri A.K. Singh did not appear in the Chief Engineer's list, nor was his appointment ever accepted by the State. Multiple objections were raised before the Sole Arbitrator regarding his appointment, all of which were rejected.

  • The award dated December 12, 2013 was characterised as having been passed without jurisdiction, tainted with fraud and corruption, and unexecutable. The Commercial Court was alleged to have committed manifest error in declining to adjudicate the Section 47 objections on merits.

  • Even if an arbitral award does not constitute a court decree, since Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 mandates enforcement as if it were a court decree, the executing court must treat it identically to a decree for the limited purpose of execution, thereby rendering Section 47 CPC objections maintainable.

  • It was contended that fraud cannot be waived, and since neither the court under Section 34 nor the High Court under Section 37 had conclusively adjudicated the fraud allegation, the issue remained open for examination at any stage of the proceedings. Reliance was placed on the principle that fraud vitiates even the most solemn of acts.