Report No. 176
2.40 Miscellaneous items
2.40.1 Section 36:
A suggestion to enforce the award straight away at the place where the property of the respondent is situated - rejected It has been suggested that there should be a provision enabling the award to be executed straightaway at places where the "judgment debtor's" property is available. This suggestion appears prima facie to be attractive if one keeps in mind the delay in the disposal of applications for transmission of execution applications.
But, there can be serious practical difficulties. For example, let us assume that the award is passed in Bombay and the property against which execution is sought is in Calcutta. If the award is to be straightaway allowed to be executed at Calcutta what will happen if, within the time prescribed for filing an application to set aside the award, such an application is filed in Bombay? This will lead to parallel proceedings in two courts and to considerable confusion and may even result in serious prejudice to one party.
There was a view expressed during the discussion on the Consultation Paper that such execution may be permitted after the period for filing an application to set aside an award has expired. But, even then, in as much applications for setting aside awards can be after delay along with applications under sec. 5 of Limitation Act, 1964, there can still be the same problem. Hence this proposal is not accepted.
2.40.2 A query: It is pointed out that if there are three arbitrators, and one grants Rs. One crore, another Rs. 1.50 crores and third Rs.1.25 crores, what is to happen and that some provision is to be made to resolve similar issues. This aspect does not present any difficulty. In the example given above, the majority decision would be Rs.1.25 crores (i.e. in view of the awards of Rs.1.5 crores and Rs.1.25 crores). We cannot provide legislation to cover all such possible eventualities.