Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M/S. Religare Finvest Limited Regd. ... vs 1.M/S. Ratan Foods, Having Its Office At ... on 6 February, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 HYD 104
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.595 of 2017
06-02-2018
M/s. Religare Finvest Limited Regd. Office at D-3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi and Branch office at Flat No.601-A
6-3-352/2 and 3, Besides Shanbagh Hotel, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Mr. Ramparasad, S/o. Ramash
1.M/s. Ratan Foods, Having its Office at 2-3-745/A Z T Nagar, Amberpet, 6 No Cross Roads, Hyderabad, also at H.No.2-3-745/1,
Classic Apartments, Domalguda, Hyderabad, also at 2-3-745/A Z T Nagar, Amberpet, 6 No Cross Roads, Hyderabad also at H.No.2-3
3. Mr. Ratanjeet Singh Sardar, S/o. Late Sardar Rajender Singh, Alias Rajender Singh Dung, R/o. H.No.1-2-593/31, Flat No.301,
Nagar, Amberpet, 6 No Cross Roads, Hyderabad also at H.No.2-3-745/1, Amberpet, Hyderabad-500013.4.Simrat Foods, having its of
Hyderabad-500013, also at 2-3-745/A Z T Nagar, Amberpet, 6 No Cross Roads, Hyderabad-500013... Respondents/Judgment Debtors
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. G. Kalyan Chakravarthy
Counsel for Respondent : -------
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
?Cases referred
(2011) 6 CTC 11
(2007) 8 SCC 466
2017 (6) ALD 5 (DB)
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.595 of 2018
ORDER:(per VRS, J) Aggrieved by the refusal of the Executing Court to entertain a petition for the execution of the Arbitral Award, the Award Holder has come up with the above revision petition.
2. Heard Mr. G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The petitioner secured an Arbitral Award as against the respondents herein, at New Delhi. The Award is stated to be an ex parte Award.
4. Since the respondents are carrying on business at Hyderabad, the petitioner filed an Execution Petition on the file of the Commercial Court cum Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The Court returned the Execution Petition on 21.08.2017 questioning the maintainability of the Execution Petition without the transmission of the Arbitral Award from the competent authority. The petitioner represented the Execution Petition, by relying upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court and a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the effect that there was no necessity to get the Award transmitted.
5. However, the Court below again returned the papers on the very same ground, viz., that the objection regarding maintainability without getting the Award transmitted, will hold good. Hence the Award holder has come up with the above revision petition.
6. One of us (VRS,J) had an occasion to consider the question as to whether after the advent of the 1996 Act, there was any necessity for an Award Holder to get the Award transmitted from a Court within whose jurisdiction, the Arbitral proceedings took place, to a Court in which the Award is sought to be executed, in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Mumbai v. Sivakama Sundari . After taking note of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. V. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. , the Madras High Court went into the provisions of Sections 37, 38, 39, 41, 43 and 45 of the Code and came to the conclusion that the expression Court which passed the decree appearing in Section 37, will not include the Arbitral Tribunal, which passed an Award. The Madras High Court also took note of the provisions of the 1996 Act and the crucial distinction between the 1940 Act and 1996 Act. Since Section 36 of the 1996 Act makes the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal deemed to be a decree of Court, it would follow as a corollary that the Arbitral Tribunal is in the position of a Court which passed the decree, though it may not exactly be the same. The provisions of Order 21 Rules 5, 6 and 10 of the C.P.C read with Section 38 cannot be applied to the execution of an Award. Therefore, it was held in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., that there is no question of treating the Court within whose jurisdiction the arbitral proceedings took place, as a Court which passed the decree within the meaning of Section 37 of the Code, so as to oblige the Award Holder to get the decree transmitted.
7. In fact, it was also pointed out in paragraph-26 of the decision in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., that the Awards passed by the Registrar of Chits, under the Chit Funds Act of the respective Sates, are also normally executed by Civil Courts, without anyone transmitting the same to any Court. Following the said decision, this Court also held in Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., v. S. Salauddin that there is no question of requiring the Award Holder to get decree transmitted. Hence the action of the Court below in repeatedly returning the Execution Petition on the ground that the petitioner should get the Award transmitted is more than what is stipulated under the 1996 Act.
8. As a mater of fact, four High Courts, viz., Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Madras and this Court have now taken the view that there is no necessity to get the Award transmitted. It is true that Kerala High Court took a different view and held that even the Awards are required to be transmitted. But we do not, with great respect, subscribe to the said view.
9. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to represent the Execution Petition along with a copy of this order. Upon the Execution Petition being represented, the Court below shall number the same, if it is otherwise in order, order notice to the respondents and proceed in accordance with law. The Registry is directed to return the original Execution Petition to the counsel for the petitioner to enable him to represent the same before the Court below.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed.
________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J _____________________ T. AMARNATH GOUD, J 6th February, 2018