3 On these facts there are clearly triable issues arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the enforceability of bank guarantees, though the subject matter is also pending adjudication before the District Court, Ernaculam in an application of the Plaintiff under Section 34 of the Act. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff relies on Section 36 of the Act and also cites judgment of the Supreme Court in National Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Pressteel & Fabrications (P) Ltd.1 She submits that an award, which is challenged within the time stipulated under Section 34 before a competent Court, is un-executable. Whilst this may be so, the question before this Court is about enforceability of the bank guarantees, which are the subject matter of the present suit. The question of enforceability is already decided by an arbitral forum against the Plaintiff herein. Whether or not the award passed by the Arbitrator in this case is executable, is besides the point. But surely, the least that the Defendant can say on the basis thereof is that whether or not the Plaintiff can enforce the bank guarantees is a triable matter, to be decided at the hearing of the suit and no decree or conditional order should follow upon a Summons for Judgment. In the premises, the Defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit.
