MP HC: Objections To Arbitral Award Beyond “Nullity” Must Be Raised Under Section 34, Not Section 47 CPC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has held that a person seeking to resist an arbitral award on grounds other than nullity must file a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and cannot rely on Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) during execution. At the same time, the court saved the petitioner from losing his remedy altogether.

Justice Vinay Saraf made the observations while disposing of a civil revision petition filed by one Yogesh against an order dated September 18, 2026, passed by the II District Judge, Indore, in Arbitration Execution No. 1069/2023. The executing court had rejected his application under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC seeking dismissal of the execution petition.

The dispute arises from an arbitration award passed on June 16, 2023, by the Arbitration Board of Shrimant Maharaja Tukojirao Cloth Market Merchant Association in favour of M/s Porwal Feb Techs. The award was for recovery of money from M/s Mangal Creation, shown in the proceedings as a firm run by Yogesh as proprietor.

Yogesh told the court that he learnt of the arbitration only when the attachment warrant was sought to be executed. He maintained that he was not the proprietor of Mangal Creation, had bought no material from Porwal Feb Techs and owed nothing, placing the firm’s shop establishment registration certificate on record. He also said that no notice of the arbitral proceedings was served on him, and that it was published in a newspaper without adequate circulation in Indore, resulting in an ex-parte award.

The executing court dismissed his application, reasoning that he ought to have appeared before the arbitral body and raised his objection there. Yogesh moved the High Court through advocate Pavan Kumar Verma, who appeared through video conferencing. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Electrosteel Steel Limited v. Ispat Carrier Pvt. Ltd., the counsel argued that an award suffering from patent or inherent lack of jurisdiction can be objected to at the execution stage without a Section 34 challenge.

The High Court was not persuaded. It noted that a plea of nullity can indeed be raised under Section 47 CPC, but only within a narrow compass. Here, the court observed, the petitioner had not questioned the inherent jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. His objections concerned who the proprietor of the judgment-debtor firm was, and alleged non-service of notice. Both, it said, could have been raised under Section 34. “The position of law is very clear that except the objection of nullity, all other objections are required to be raised” under that provision, it held.

Counsel then submitted that limitation for a Section 34 application had already expired, and that the petitioner had approached the executing court bona fide. The court noted that limitation is 90 days from knowledge of the award and that “the window for filing the objections to the arbitration award is very narrow.” Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it added, does not apply to Section 34 proceedings.

However, the court found relief in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which excludes time spent bona fide pursuing a proceeding before a court lacking jurisdiction. Relying on Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Irrigation Department and Kirpalsingh v. Government of India, it observed that Section 14 does not create a fresh period of limitation but only excludes a certain period.

The High Court accordingly disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to file objections under Section 34 before the competent court. If he does so, the period from the filing of the Section 47 application till October 12, 2026, the date of the decision, shall be excluded while calculating limitation.

The court did not decide whether Yogesh is the proprietor of Mangal Creation. That question will now be tested before the court hearing the Section 34 application.

Case Title: Yogesh vs. Porwal Feb Tax through Owner/Authorised Representative and Others

Order Date: October 12, 2026

Bench: Justice Vinay Saraf