Execution Petition Is Not Maintainable When Award Is Already Held Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Civil Revision by Real Fab India

“Once a Court has conclusively held that an arbitral award is inexecutable, a second execution petition for the same award cannot bypass that finding—it would amount to re-litigating a closed issue” - In a notable judgment Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of its execution petition against Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL). Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari upheld the lower court's decision, observing that the award had already been found inexecutable, and merely filing a signed copy at a later stage could not revive what had already been deemed jurisdictionally flawed and legally unenforceable.

“Even after the award contained the signatures and filed for execution, so far as the award suffering from illegalities... it could not be ignored by the Execution Court.”

The dispute arose from a commercial claim filed by Real Fab India, a registered small-scale industrial unit, seeking over ₹22 crores from RINL. The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) passed an award in favour of Real Fab on 25 October 2018, directing payment of ₹11.79 crores in principal and interest under the MSMED Act, 2006. However, RINL challenged the award in CAOP No.16 of 2019 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

While the Special Judge did not set aside the award (due to the unsigned copy being filed), it made damning observations, stating:

“The award could have been set aside on the grounds that the Council had no jurisdiction, that the contract was a works contract, and that the award was not a reasoned one.”

Thus, the court dismissed the Section 34 petition not on merits but due to technical deficiency—absence of signatures of the Council Members and Chairperson on the award filed.

“Filing a Signed Copy Cannot Cure a Jurisdictional Infirmity”: Court's Firm Stand on Finality

After the initial execution petition was closed due to a stay, and a subsequent attempt (E.A. No.11 of 2024) to revive it was dismissed on merits, Real Fab filed a fresh execution petition in CEP GR Nos. 1694 and 1772 of 2024, this time annexing the signed award.

However, the Executing Court once again rejected it as not maintainable, and the High Court confirmed that decision, holding: “The previous rejection of E.A. No.11 of 2024 refusing to restore CEP No.6 of 2019 was not only on the ground that the award was unsigned... The award was found inexecutable for the reasons already recorded.”

The High Court found that Real Fab was attempting to re-litigate an issue already decided, which violated settled principles of finality and judicial discipline.

“A Decree Without Jurisdiction Is a Nullity—Execution Cannot Be Permitted”

While Real Fab relied on V.D. Modi v. R. Abdul Rehman to argue that execution courts cannot go behind the decree, the Court distinguished the case. It ruled that the findings in CAOP No.16 of 2019 clearly established that the award was rendered without jurisdiction, which rendered it a nullity.

“The Executing Court, in the present proceedings, could not ignore that the award was without jurisdiction, not capable of execution.”

The Court also referred to Parikshitraj Kulkarni v. Asst. Director, WCD, emphasizing that a second execution petition for the same award is barred when the first is dismissed on merits, even if filed within limitation.

“No Court Is Bound to Perform a Futile Exercise”: High Court Rejects Mechanical Restoration

The petitioner argued that the court ought to have restored and processed the execution petition, and only then dismissed it if objections were raised. But Justice Tilhari rejected this procedural formality:

“The Court can of its own consider the maintainability of the execution petition and need not wait for an objection to be raised.”

The judgment underscored that executive inefficiency in the award process (such as filing unsigned awards) cannot be used to circumvent serious legal deficiencies in jurisdiction or statutory compliance.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has affirmed a principle of substantive legality over procedural formality, holding that a defective and jurisdictionally void award cannot be revived or executed merely by filing a signed copy at a later date.

“No illegality has been committed in rejecting the present CEP GR as not maintainable.”

The decision marks a crucial precedent under the MSMED Act and Arbitration Act, reminding executing courts and award creditors alike that final judicial findings on validity and jurisdiction bind all subsequent proceedings.

Date of Decision: 21 March 2025