Punjab-Haryana High Court
Indusind Bank Limited vs Amit Mittal & Another on 13 August, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL REVISION NO.394 OF 2011
DATE OF DECISION : 13th AUGUST, 2012
Indusind Bank Limited
.... Petitioner
Versus
Amit Mittal & another
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
****
Present : Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.
****
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
By filing this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, decree holder (DH) has assailed order dated 14.10.2010 passed by Executing Court i.e. learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, thereby dismissing the execution petition filed by the DH-petitioner.
Dispute between the parties was referred to Arbitrator, who passed award at Chennai. In view of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Arbitration award is executable as decree of the Court.
Petitioner-decree holder filed execution petition for execution of the award in the Court at Chennai (where the award was passed), but since property of respondents/judgment debtors (JDs) is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Court at Ambala, DH got the decree (award) transferred for execution to the Court at Ambala and accordingly the executing Court at Ambala was seized of the execution proceedings. JDs raised objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Ambala to execute the decree. Learned Executing Court vide impugned order dated 14.10.2010 has uphled the objection of the JDs relying on CR No.394 of 2011 -2- judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Versus P. Vengal Rao and another, 2009 AIR (AP), 196 and dismissed the execution petition. Feeling aggrieved, DH has filed this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner contended that even according to judgment in the case of M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. (supra), the petitioner had to file the execution petition at Chennai and to get the decree transferred to Court at Ambala for execution and since it was so done, the Court at Ambala has jurisdiction to execute the decree. Relying on unreported judgment dated 13.03.2009 of Delhi High Court in EA No.105 of 2009 titled Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. Versus Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., it was contended that execution petition could even be filed straightaway in the Court at Ambala.
On the other hand, counsel for respondents/JDs contended that Arbitration award cannot be transferred for execution just like decree of Civil Court and, therefore, Court at Ambala has no jurisdiction to execute the award and only Court at Chennai has jurisdiction to execute the award.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions. In the case of M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Limited (supra), the award was passed at Chennai. However, both the parties resided at Vishakhapatnam. Accordingly execution petition was filed at Vishakhapatnam but was got transferred to District Ranga Reddy where the JDs had property. It was held that Court at Vishakhapatnam could not transfer the decree to District Ranga Reddy and only Court at Chennai could do so. In the instant case, adopting the same course, the DH filed execution petition at Chennai and the decree/award was transferred to Court at Ambala for execution since JDs have property in territorial jurisdiction of Court at CR No.394 of 2011 -3- Ambala. Consequently this judgment goes in favour of the petitioner. The executing Court did not properly appreciate the proposition of law laid down in the said judgment and did not properly takes notice of the facts of that case. Moreover, in view of judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) also, Court at Ambala has territorial jurisdiction to execute the decree.
The matter may also be examined from another angle. Admittedly JDs have no property within territorial jurisdiction of Court at Chennai. Consequently, Court at Chennai would be completely unable to execute the award because Court at Chennai cannot exercise extra territorial jurisdiction to attach or sell the property of JDs in District Ambala for realization of the awarded amount. Consequently, the only remedy available with the DH for execution of the award, which is executable as decree of the Court, was to get the award/decree transferred to Court at Ambala for execution. In no other way can the decree/award be executed.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that impugned order passed by the executing court is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the executing Court is set aside. Objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Ambala raised by JDs is overruled. The execution petition is restored to the files of the executing Court for execution of the award/decree in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the executing Court on 13.09.2012.
13th August, 2012 (L. N. MITTAL)
'raj' JUDGE