Enforcement
Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with enforcement. Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under section 34 has expired, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), such award shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in the same manner as if it were The Act came into force on 22 Aug 1996.
1[36. Enforcement--(1) Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under section 34 has expired, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), such award shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court.
(2) Where an application to set aside the arbitral award has been filed in the Court under section 34, the filing of such an application shall not by itself render that award unenforceable, unless the Court grants an order of stay of the operation of the said arbitral award in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3), on a separate application made for that purpose.
(3) Upon filing of an application under sub-section (2) for stay of the operation of the arbitral award, the Court may, subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, grant stay of the operation of such award for reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided that the Court shall, while considering the application for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral award for payment of money, have due regard to the provisions for grant of stay of a money decree under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).]
2[Provided further that where the Court is satisfied that a Prima facie case is made out that,--
(a) the arbitration agreement or contract which is the basis of the award; or
(b) the making of the award,
was induced or effected by fraud or corruption, it shall stay the award unconditionally pending disposal of the challenge under section 34 to the award.
Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the above proviso shall apply to all court cases arising out of or in relation to arbitral proceedings, irrespective of whether the arbitral or court proceedings were commenced prior to or after the commencement of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (3 of 2016).]
Section 36, The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Hindustan Construction Company Limited v. Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-15.pdf 2019-11-27. WP(C) 1074/2019 (with 1276/2019, 1310/2019). R.F. Nariman / Aniruddha Bose / V. Ramasubramanian 3-judge reportable. DATE-CHECK false positive (2019-08-30 s.87 in force / 2015-10-23 amendment fact dates); body is the named 27 Nov 2019 3-judge reportable. Isolates Arbitration Act 36: filing a s.34 petition does not automatically stay enforcement (NALCO / Fiza Developers per incuriam); s.87 of the 2019 Amendment (reviving automatic stay) is struck as manifestly arbitrary. Map arbitration-act 36 cited only. Do not pad s.34 (already filled) or s.37 (filled this pass by BGS). Do not pad IBC from the same judgment.
On this section: Arbitration Act 36 has no automatic stay on a s.34 filing; the 2019 Amendment’s s.87 revival of automatic stay is unconstitutional (HCC / UOI). Do not pad s.34 (already filled) or s.37 (BGS this pass).
-
International Seaport Dredging Pvt. LTD vs Kamarajar Port Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Statutory bodies and government corporations are not entitled to differential treatment in arbitration proceedings compared to private entities. The Arbitration Act is a self-contained code that mandates equal treatment of all parties under Section 18. When considering applications for stay of arbitration awards for payment of money, courts must apply principles of Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC as guidance, but the Arbitration Act provisions take precedence. The status of a party as a statutory undertaking or its perceived reliability cannot be basis for modifying conditions of stay. Instead, courts must require deposit of a substantial portion of the decretal amount (here, 75%) as condition for stay, regardless of the party's nature or status.
On this section: Filing of application to set aside award does not render award unenforceable unless court grants stay - interpreted to require separate application for stay
-
Afcons Infra. Ltd. vs Cherian Varkey Constn Co. P. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A civil court cannot refer a suit to arbitration under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless all parties to the suit agree to such reference. Even though Section 89 mandates courts to refer pending suits to alternative dispute resolution processes, reference to arbitration specifically requires mutual consent of all parties, as arbitration is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which contemplates the existence of an arbitration agreement. While non-adjudicatory ADR processes (Lok Adalat, mediation, judicial settlement) can be imposed by court discretion after identifying suitable cases, adjudicatory arbitration process cannot be imposed without party consent. The proper procedure requires courts to invoke Section 89 suo moto after completion of pleadings and before framing issues, consider whether the case falls under excluded categories, and only for suitable cases, explain the five ADR options to parties and ascertain their preferences, with arbitration and conciliation requiring mutual consent.
On this section: Makes arbitral award binding on parties and executable/enforceable as if court decree
-
P. Radha Bai vs P. Ashok Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is expressly excluded from application to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The express exclusion is inferred from the language of Section 34(3), particularly the phrase 'but not thereafter' which creates an absolute outer boundary of 120 days for challenging arbitral awards. This exclusion is also necessarily implied from the scheme and object of the Arbitration Act, which is to provide speedy dispute resolution with finality and certainty of awards. Once a party receives an arbitral award, the three-month limitation period commences, and subsequent fraud or mistake by the other party cannot defer the commencement of this period or extend the outer 120-day boundary. The principle of 'unbreakability' of the limitation period, enshrined in the UNCITRAL Model Law, precludes any extension beyond the prescribed period.
On this section: Enforcement of award; commences after Section 34 limitation period expires; integral nexus with Section 34 period
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 36
What have the courts held on Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
Hindustan Construction Company Limited v. Union of India (27 Nov 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Arbitration Act 36 has no automatic stay on a s.34 filing; the 2019 Amendment’s s.87 revival of automatic stay is unconstitutional (HCC / UOI). Do not pad s.34 (already filled) or s.37 (BGS this pass). Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Arbitration Act 36, section 36 Arbitration Act, section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. People searching for it also type arbitration conciliation act 36 and arbitration and conciliation act 36 r/w sec 2(e). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Hindustan Construction Company Limited v. Union of India (27 Nov 2019).
What should I read with Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 34 (Application for setting aside arbitral awards), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act come into force?
Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cited as Arbitration Act 36, came into force on 22 Aug 1996, having been enacted on 16 Aug 1996. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement1029 words
- 11. Appointment of arbitrators1027 words
- 34. Application for setting aside arbitral awards861 words
- 2. Definitions732 words
- 29A. Time limit for arbitral award635 words
- 57. Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards519 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.