Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

While the matter stood thus, the respondent suppressing several facts filed E.P.No.33 of 2016 for execution of decree/award dated 29.01.2016 passed by the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and decree dated 28.08.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh in Arbitration Case No.399 of 2010 and Award No.HMSEFC/2010/08 dated 21.06.2010 passed in Case No.7 and obtained exparte garnishee order dated 30.06.2016 directing State Bank of Hyderabad, Vidyut Soudha Branch and ICICI Bank, Khairtabad Branch, to deposit Rs.8,22,52,239/- on or before 29.07.2016 to the credit of the above E.P. by exercising power under Order XXI Rule 46 and 46-A of C.P.C. On coming to know about the said order through bankers, the petitioner filed objections before the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 20.07.2016 stating that there is no enforceable award/executable decree in view of the pendency of the matter in Arbitration Case No.580 of 2010 before the Additional District Court, Chandigarh due to remand by the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and sought for suspension of the garnishee order dated 30.06.2016, but the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad did not pass any order till today.

During hearing learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh mainly contended that the amended provisions of Act 3 of 2016 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act has no retrospective effect and it applies only to the Arbitration proceedings initiated after the commencement of the amended provisions of Arbitration Act i.e. on or after 23.10.2015. As the amended provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act came into force from 23.10.2015, there is deemed stay of operation of award during pendency of the appeal in view of Section 36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, but the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad without considering the effect of amended provisions, entertained the E.P.No.33 of 2016 and issued garnishee order for Rs.8,22,52,239/- by directing the Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Khairatabad, Hyderabad (in respect of account No.52077965102 and 52077969912) and Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Khairatabad (in respect of account No.000805008881) to pay the attached amount from the said accounts to the credit of E.P. He also drawn the attention of this Court to several judgments in support of his contentions, more particularly the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH v. Steel Authority of India Ltd , Thirumalai Chemicals Limited v. Union of India , unreported judgments of High Court of Calcutta in Electrosteel Castings Limited v. Reacon Engineers (India) Private Limited (AP No.1710 of 2015), Sri Nitya Ranjan Jena v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. (G.A.No.145 of 2016 with A.P.No.15 of 2016) and unreported judgment of High Court of Delhi in Ministry of Defence, Government of India v. CENREX SP. Z.O.O. and Ors (O.M.P.No.408 of 2007) to contend that the amended provisions would not take away the substantial right that accrued to the petitioner by the amendment to Section 36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act with effect from 23.10.2015 and such interpretation would render the pre-amended provisions redundant and thereby there is deemed stay of execution of award, if any, passed by the Council in view of the pendency of application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the District Judge, Chandigarh and such substantive right that accrued to the petitioner would not be taken away by amended Act 3 of 2016 since the proceedings were initiated much prior to the commencement of amendment and the application filed under Section 34 is continuation of earlier proceedings, thereby as on today there is, absolutely, no executable award, consequently, the impugned garnishee order passed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is liable to be set aside.

Strangely, the respondent filed E.P. before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of amount covered by items including Sl.Nos.1 to 25 though the order passed by the objecting Court was clearly set aside by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, remanded the matter to the objecting Court to decide the matter afresh with regard to item Sl.Nos.1 to 25. When the order of the objecting Court with regard to item Sl.Nos.1 to 25 was set aside by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, absolutely there is no executable order in favour of respondent for item Nos.1 to 25 as on today. Therefore, filing of Execution Petition claiming amount covered by item Sl.Nos.1 to 25 in pursuance of the order of the objecting Court, which is set aside by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, is illegal and therefore, the order in respect of item Nos.1 to 25 shall not be executed and no order be passed for recovery of amount covered by item Sl.Nos.1 to 25, but the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed garnishee order directing the Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Khairatabad and Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Khairatabad, Hyderabad to send an amount of Rs.8,22,52,239/- to the credit of Execution Petition, such order is unsustainable under law in view of specific order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana setting aside the order passed by the objecting Court in respect of item Nos.1 to 25, thereby there was no executable order for the item Nos.1 to 25 as on the date of filing of the execution petition. Consequently, garnishee order covering the amount with regard to item Nos.1 to 25 appended as annexure A.W.1 is hereby set aside. However, it is left open to the respondent to file execution petition if the objecting Court passed order, if any, after making necessary enquiry as directed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in F.A.O.Nos.10525 of 2014, 10507 of 2014, 34 of 2015 and 68 of 2015.

Consequently, filing of E.P. for the award in respect of item Nos.1 to 25 and garnishee order issued by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of amount covered by item Nos.1 to 25 is illegal since there is no executable award in view of the order of High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Consequently, the garnishee order to the extent of amount covered by item Nos.1 to 25 is hereby set aside while upholding the impugned garnishee order in respect of item Nos.26 to 45. Accordingly, the points are answered.