Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Kumar vs Indusind Bank Limited And Another on 17 January, 2014
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
FAO No.5100 of 2011 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.5100 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 17.01.2014
Sunil Kumar
..... Appellant
Versus
Indusind Bank Limited and another ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate,
for the appellant.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(Oral)
It is not disputed that the arbitration proceedings were conducted in Chennai in the State of Tamil Nadu and the award was passed there and became a decree in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act"). The decree holder Indusind Bank Limited which is the respondent in this appeal filed execution proceedings in Civil Court at Ludhiana claiming dues under the award passed in its favour. On receiving notice of the execution proceedings, the appellant questioned the award by filing an application under S.34 of the Act in Ludhiana as a counter to the execution proceedings. It is also not disputed that the contract which gave rise to the arbitration proceedings was executed by the parties at Sangrur within the State of Punjab. In view of this factual background which cannot be disputed, this Court can do little but to hold that the application filed under S.34 of the Act by the appellant was in Court which had no jurisdiction to entertain it for lack of territorial jurisdiction or to Mittal Manju 2014.01.27 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5100 of 2011 (O&M) -2- otherwise question the award. Conversely the execution proceedings filed by the respondent at Ludhiana would also appear to be non est. In the circumstances, the appellant and the respondents would be at liberty to take proceedings against the award in a Court of competent jurisdiction at Chennai, if advised, and as warranted by law. Since the Bank took the first step to execute the award in a forum which had no jurisdiction, the appellant would necessarily have had to react to such execution proceedings in order to save itself of the execution proceedings on pleas available to it under law. Therefore, the appellant cannot be wholly faulted of filing an application under S.34 of the Act to dispute the award at Ludhiana and, therefore, I am inclined to think that the appellant would remain at liberty to challenge the award under S.34 proceedings in a Court at Chennai and in case, such proceedings are brought within 30 days of the date of reciept of a certified copy of this order, the Chennai Court would consider the present proceedings as time spent in wrong forum and to consider it as an explanation for delay in challenging the award for the reason based on the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that though the award was passed on 10th June, 2008 the appellant came to know of the award only on receipt of notice from the executing court at Ludhiana in March 2009 which led to the filing of application under S.34 of the Act on 18th March, 2009.
It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that from a perusal of the award it is manifest that the ex parte award was procured against the appellant by trying to serve it at village Nimas whereas the appellant is resident of village Meemsa in Tehsil Dhuri, District Mittal Manju 2014.01.27 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5100 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Sangrur, Punjab. Learned counsel admits that there is no village by the name of Nimas in Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur. If that is so then this reason may also be considered by the competent Court at Chennai, in case further proceedings are brought at Chennai against the award to determine, if indeed a trick was played to obtain an ex parte award against the appellant. I have little doubt that in such event the question of limitation under S.34 of the Act can be considered in accordance with law and under the special attending facts and circumstances of the case.
With this, the appeal stands disposed of.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 17.01.2014 manju Mittal Manju 2014.01.27 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh