Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S. B. R. Arora And Associates Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 10 September, 2024
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 76/2024
M/S. B. R. ARORA AND ASSOCIATES PVT LTD
.....Decree Holder
Through: Mr Vaibhav Dang, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Judgement Debtor
Through: Ms Monika Arora, CGSC (through
VC)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 10.09.2024
EX.APPL.(OS) 1441/2024
1. This is an application filed on behalf of the decree holder seeking attachment of the assets of the judgment debtors.
2. The present petition under section 36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeks enforcement of the Award dated 26.07.2019 passed by the Additional Director General (Contracts) (Retd.)/Sole Arbitrator.
3. Ms Arora, learned CGSC appears for the judgment-debtor and states that in the present case it will be the Courts at Bengaluru/Chennai which will have the territorial jurisdiction to try the execution petition.
4. She further states that in the present case as per the memo of parties, the Union of India ("UOI") is represented by Chief Engineer(AF), DC Area, MES Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru. Further, the entire cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Courts at Bengaluru and the assets of the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/09/2024 at 21:15:14 judgment-debtor are also situated there.
5. She has handed over a communication dated August, 2024 and relies on para 4 which reads as under:
"4. Keeping in view the above fact, it is intimated that order of commercial Court Coimbatore can be challenged in Hon'ble High Court Chennai only. The case filed by the Contractor is subject work in Hon'ble High Court Delhi with claiming Chief Engineer Delhi is a party of Case, is not justified due to following reasons:-
(a) The subject work was executed by CE(AF) Bangalore Zone which comes under Air Force jurisdiction / Area however Chief Engineer Delhi Zone (CEDZ) is looking after the Area of Army therefore both the offices have their own separate entity and Area of jurisdiction and also working/functioning totally separately in all respect.
(b) Allotment of funds of both the Chief Engineers is in different channel and there is no communication between the both offices.
(c) Area of jurisdiction of CE(AF) Bangalore Zone comes under Hon'ble High Court Chennai further case shall be filed in Hon'ble High Court Chennai only."
6. In view of the above submissions, she states that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present execution petition.
7. Mr Dang, learned counsel for the decree-holder states that the asset of the judgment-debtor is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court.
8. He further draws my attention to the Schedule of Assets wherein the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/09/2024 at 21:15:14 account of the judgment-debtor is as under:-
"(i) A/c No. 10469772345 of Garrison Engineer (MES) under Chief Engineer with the State Bank of India, Delhi Cantt, Nangal Raya, New Delhi (Branch Code no. 00733).
(ii) CDA account of the Judgment Debtor.
(iii) Furniture, car and other movable assets of the Engineer-in-Chief of the Judgment Debtor, at Integrated HQ of MoD, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi --
110001."
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. The distinction sought to be drawn by the learned CGSC is hyper technical and needs to be ignored as the subject tender has been issued by Chief Engineer, Air Force, MES. After the completion of work, a letter dated 30.10.2010 has been shown which shows that on satisfactory completion, it is the MES which has taken over the contracted work.
11. The contracted work was done for the Union of India for re-surfacing of Runway at Air Force Station, Sulur, Coimbatore and hence it was only this reason that Chief Engineer, Air Force of Bengaluru who was looking after the arbitration proceedings. Para 4 quoted above does not talk about the appointment, award and execution, rather it has taken a narrow and myopic view. No doubt that the branch looking after runway would be Bengaluru but the fact remains that it is MES which has a.) floated the tender, b.) appointed the arbitrator, c.) after competition of the work, has taken over the project.
12. The account details given by the decree-holder also shows the same account of Garrison Engineer (MES) under Chief Engineer is being held at This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/09/2024 at 21:15:14 State Bank of India, Delhi Cantt, Nangal Raya, New Delhi.
13. Para 3 of the Award dated 26.07.2019 also shows that the Arbitrator had been appointed by Engineer-in-Chief, Integrated HQ of MOD (Army), Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110011. Para 3 reads as under:-
"3. AND WHEREAS, I, have been appointed as Sole Arbitrator by Engineer-in-Chief, Integrated HQ of MOD (Army), Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110011 (designated authority of appointment of arbitrator mentioned in Contract) vide letter no. 13600/SC/1113/31/E8 dated 05 Dec 2016 to adjudicate the disputes between the parties;"
14. For the said reasons, I am of the view that the assets of the judgment- debtor are situated within the jurisdiction of this Court and hence, the account of MES at Delhi can be attached. The division amongst the various departments may be because of administrative convenience.
15. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Samad, (2018) 3 SCC 622 and more particularly paras 5B and 20 will be applicable which reads as under:-
"B. An award is to be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the said Code in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court as per Section 36 of the said Act does not imply that the award is a decree of a particular court and it is only a fiction. Thus, the award can be filed for execution before the court where the assets of the judgment-debtor are located 5.3.Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. [Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 511 : (2009) 159 DLT 579] (Delhi High Court) -- The learned This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/09/2024 at 21:15:14 Single Judge of the Delhi High Court repelled the contention that the jurisdictional Section 42 of the said Act requiring an application under Section 34 of the said Act to be filed in that Court would not extend to the execution of a decree. The execution application was not "arbitral proceedings". Section 38 of the said Code applies to a decree passed by the court prescribing that the decree may be executed by the court which passed it, or by the court to which it was sent for execution. In case of an award no court passes the decree. The learned Single Judge went into the discussion of the effect of the provisions of Section 635(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 providing for the order of the Company Law Board to be enforced by the court in certain circumstances to draw an analogy therefrom.
5.4.Maharashtra Apex Corpn. Ltd. v. Balaji G. [Maharashtra Apex Corpn. Ltd. v. Balaji G., 2011 SCC OnLine Ker 4039 : (2011) 4 KLJ 408] (Kerala High Court) -- The learned Single Judge expressed the view that the court cannot insist for a decree to receive an execution application on its file and, thus, there was no question of transfer of a decree. The execution court was to accept the execution petition with a certified copy of the award wherever it was filed.
................ ..................... ..................... Conclusion
20. We are, thus, unhesitatingly of the view that the enforcement of an award through its execution can be filed anywhere in the country where such decree can be executed and there is no This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/09/2024 at 21:15:14 requirement for obtaining a transfer of the decree from the court, which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings."
16. In this view of the matter, the execution petition is allowed.
17. Account No. 10469772345 of Garrison Engineer (MES) is attached to the tune of Rs.10, 53,59,121/- and the same shall be remitted to the Registrar General, Delhi High Court.
18. Since I am informed that against the order of dismissal of the Section 34 petition, an appeal under Section 37 has been filed/proposed to be filed, the amount remitted in the name of Registrar General, Delhi High Court shall be released to the decree holder on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar General
19. The present application is disposed of accordingly.
20. The documents handed over in Court today are taken on record. OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 76/2024
21. List on 21.01.2025.
22. The next date of hearing i.e. 29.10.2024 stands cancelled.
JASMEET SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 sr (Corrected and released on 24.09.2024) Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/09/2024 at 21:15:15