Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has once again reinforced the principle of speedy enforcement of arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In a recent judgment delivered on 18 September 2025, the Court clarified that the pendency of an appeal under Section 37 against the dismissal of objections under Section 34 does not automatically operate as a stay on the execution of an arbitral award.
This ruling carries significant implications for arbitration law in India, as it emphasizes the finality and enforceability of arbitral awards while discouraging dilatory tactics often adopted by judgment-debtors.
The case, Chakardhari Sureka v. Prem Lata Sureka Through SPA & Ors. (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 919), was decided by a Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Background of the Case
The matter arose when the appellant (award-holder) approached the execution court for enforcement of an arbitral award. The respondents (judgment-debtors) opposed execution on the ground that their appeal under Section 37 against the dismissal of their Section 34 objections was still pending before the High Court.
The Delhi High Court, instead of proceeding with the execution, adjourned the matter, citing the pendency of the Section 37 appeal. Aggrieved by this order, the award-holder approached the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Court
The central question was:
- Does the mere pendency of a Section 37 appeal operate as a bar against execution of an arbitral award?
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court categorically held that:
- No Automatic Stay – Pendency of a Section 37 appeal does not by itself operate as a stay against execution of the award.
- Express Stay Order Required – Execution proceedings can only be stalled if there is an express interim order of stay passed by the appellate court.
- Role of Execution Court – The Execution Court retains full authority to consider issues of executability and objections raised under law. However, it cannot defer execution merely due to pendency of appeal when no stay order is in force.
Quoting the Bench:
“It would not be proper for the Execution Court to defer consideration of the execution application and the objections thereto only because an appeal is pending under Section 37 when there is no interim order operating against the award.”
Thus, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s adjournment order and directed that the execution proceedings must continue.
Legal Context: Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act
To understand the ruling, it is important to revisit two key provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
- Section 34: Provides a mechanism for parties to apply for setting aside an arbitral award on limited grounds such as fraud, corruption, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of natural justice.
- Section 37: Allows for an appeal against an order made under Section 34 (either refusing to set aside or setting aside an award).
While Section 34 challenges often delay enforcement, the 2015 Amendment to Section 36 clarified that filing a Section 34 petition does not automatically stay execution. A separate application for stay must be filed and allowed by the court.
The present judgment extends this logic to Section 37 appeals, reinforcing that unless there is a specific stay order, the award is enforceable.
Importance of the Judgment
This ruling is critical for the following reasons:
1. Promotes Finality in Arbitration
Arbitration is intended to provide a swift and final resolution of disputes. If mere pendency of appeals were allowed to stall execution, it would undermine the very purpose of arbitration.
2. Discourages Dilatory Tactics
Parties often file appeals under Section 37 not necessarily with merit, but to delay enforcement of awards. The Court’s ruling prevents misuse of appellate remedies for delaying tactics.
3. Strengthens India’s Arbitration Ecosystem
India has been positioning itself as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction in line with international standards. This judgment furthers that objective by ensuring that awards are treated with seriousness and enforced promptly.
4. Clarity for Execution Courts
Execution courts across the country now have clear guidance: unless there is a specific stay order, they must proceed with execution of arbitral awards.
Case Citation and Cause Title
- Case Title: Chakardhari Sureka v. Prem Lata Sureka Through SPA & Ors.
- Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 919
- Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
- Date of Judgment: 18 September 2025
Related Precedents
This ruling is in line with earlier judgments where the Supreme Court has emphasized that arbitral awards must be respected unless expressly stayed:
- Fiza Developers & Inter-Trade Pvt. Ltd. v. AMCI (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 17 SCC 796 – The Court observed that mere filing of a Section 34 petition does not amount to an automatic stay.
- Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 6 SCC 287 – The Court clarified that the 2015 Amendment to Section 36 applies even to pending Section 34 petitions, removing the concept of automatic stay.
The present judgment extends the same principle to Section 37 appeals.
Implications for Businesses and Litigants
- Award-holders empowered – Successful parties in arbitration can now proceed confidently with execution, unless an explicit stay is granted.
- Faster dispute resolution – Businesses and individuals will save time and costs by avoiding unnecessary delays.
- Encourages arbitration as preferred mechanism – By ensuring enforceability, the judgment boosts faith in arbitration as a reliable dispute resolution mechanism.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Chakardhari Sureka v. Prem Lata Sureka marks another important step in strengthening India’s arbitration framework. By holding that pendency of a Section 37 appeal does not automatically stall execution, the Court has reinforced the principle of finality, discouraged delay tactics, and promoted swift enforcement of awards.
This judgment sends a strong message that arbitration in India will not be reduced to an endless cycle of litigation but will remain true to its core purpose—efficient and effective dispute resolution.
As India continues to evolve as a hub for international arbitration, such rulings will go a long way in building investor confidence and reducing litigation backlogs in courts.
Also Read
