Kerala High Court
Grace Valley Public School vs M/S. Educomp Solutions Ltd on 11 October, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018/19TH ASWINA, 1940
OP(C).No.3248 of 2017
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN EP 170/2017
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - III, MANJERI)
PETITIONER:
GRACE VALLEY PUBLIC SCHOOL,
WADIRRAHMA MARAVATTOM, MALAPPURAM,
CHENGOTTOOR, KERALA 676 503,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
SRI. S.HAMEED, S/O.PEER MOHAMMED,
AGED 65, RESIDING AT NASEEB,
P.O THAZHA CHOVVA, KANNUR - 18.
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.NANDINI
SRI.BINU BOSE
RESPONDENT:
M/S. EDUCOMP SOLUTIONS LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1211,
PADMA TOWER-1, 5, RAJENDRA PALACE,
NEW DELHI - 110 008,
REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
MR. RAJ C.R.,
S/O.C.R RAMACHANDRAN,
CHERUKANATHUNDIYIL HOUSE,
ARANGATH ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI 682 018.
BY ADV. SRI.SHIJU VARGHESE
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(C)No.3248 of 2017
2
JUDGMENT
In this case, the stand of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was never communicated with an award, even though now an execution proceeding is going on. It is the stand of the petitioner that, execution petition is premature and the respondent cannot proceed with the matter.
It is a matter to be decided on materials and facts. Surely, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this aspect can be raised before the Execution Court. Actually, if notice of award was not served, the execution petition will be premature. The stand of the counsel for the petitioner is that, already they contacted the arbitrator and it is learnt that arbitral award was communicated and there is evidence.
An enquiry regarding whether notice of award given or not cannot be made in this proceeding. The said stand can be taken before the execution court.
It is also relevant to note that the limitation OP(C)No.3248 of 2017 3 time to file an O.P. under Section 34 will run only from the moment, the petitioner receives/received a copy of the award.
For the reasons stated above, this original petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH JUDGE ss OP(C)No.3248 of 2017 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE E.P NO 170/17 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN ARBITRATION CASE RG/ARB.08/12/15/LOT-1/416 EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE SOLE ARBITRATOR DATED 22/12/2015 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT IN E.P 170/17 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25/10/2017 UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 66