Synopsis

The petitioner filed a batch of Section 34 petitions challenging amended arbitral awards dated 05.07.2025. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the awards dealt with both claims and counter‑claims, and therefore separate petitions should have been filed against each, relying on the principle that in civil suits, a counter‑claim decree requires a separate appeal. The High Court rejected the objection, holding that an arbitral award does not become a decree at the stage of challenge under Section 34; the legal fiction under Section 36(1) (enforcement “as if it were a decree”) is limited to enforcement and does not import the entire CPC procedure into Section 34 proceedings. Consequently, a single Section 34 petition challenging an award that disposes of both claims and counter‑claims is maintainable.

Court: High Court of Delhi
Coram: Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J.
Date: April 1, 2026
Citation: 2026:DHC:2816
Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34, 36, 37; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 36(1) (enforcement of decrees).

2. Legal Framework

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Sections 34 (setting aside award), 36 (enforcement of award), 37 (appealable orders).

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 36(1) – enforcement of decrees; Order VIII Rule 6A (counter‑claim); Order XLI (appeals from decrees).

• Doctrine of legal fiction: A fiction created by statute must be strictly construed and limited to the purpose for which it is created.

• Relevant Precedents:
  Ramesh Chand v. Om Raj & Ors. (H

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.