Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Section 35 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Cholamandalam Dbs Finance Ltd vs Sudheesh Kumar on 10 December, 2009
4. It is not in dispute that the borrowers have committed default and
hence, their vehicles were seized and sold by the finance company and
amounts were appropriated towards their loan amount and for remaining
amount, arbitrations were held at Chennai and since the
respondents/borrowers remained ex-parte, arbitration awards came to be
passed on 19.12.2014. The petitioner finance company, being the decree
holder has then laid the execution petitions in E.P.Nos.86 to 89 of 2018 for
executing the awards, dated 19.12.2014 before the learned Principal
District Judge, Kanyakumari District. Even in the impugned orders, the
learned District Judge has observed that the respondents/judgment debtors
did not raise any objections seriously. But, the learned District Judge by
holding that the awards obtained by the decree holder are nullity, as the
same are against public policy and the vehicles were seized without
following the judicial guidelines of the High Court in the case of
Cholamandalam Dbs Finance Ltd vs Sudheesh Kumar reported in
2010(1) CTC 481, dismissed the execution petitions. Aggrieved by the
orders of dismissal, the present revisions came to be filed.
3/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.387 to 390 of 2019
Rattan Chand Hira Chand vs Askar Nawaz Jung (Dead) By L.Rs. And Ors on 12 February, 1991
7. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattan Chand
Hira Chand's case above referred has absolutely no connection whatever
with the case on hand and in that case, some contracts were held to be
against public policy. But in the case on hand, the borrowers and the
finance company have entered into an arbitration agreement fixing
arbitration place at Chennai and as such, by no stretch of imagination, can
be considered as against public policy.
Bhawarlal Bhandari vs Universal Heavy Mechanical Lifting ... on 4 December, 1998
14. It is very fundamental that the executing Court cannot go
beyond the decree and the Court has to execute the decree as it is. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhawarlal Bhandari Vs. Universal
Heavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises reported in AIR 1999 SCC 246,
has held that the award decree, on the face of it, was not shown to be
passed without jurisdiction and that even if the decree was passed beyond
the period of limitation, it would be an error of law or a wrong decision
which can be corrected in appellate proceedings and not by the executing
Court and that since the respondent/judgment debtor has not filed any
objections, award has become final and that therefore, plea by the
judgment debtor in execution proceedings to ignore the decree as being
nullity is not tenable.
Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi vs Rajabhai Abdul Rehman & Ors on 18 March, 1970
15. The learned District Judge has referred the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vasudev Dhanjibhai Vs. Rajabhai
8/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.387 to 390 of 2019
Abdul Rehman reported in 1970 (1) SCC 670, wherein it was held as
follows :
Jnanendra Mohan Bhaduri vs Rabindra Nath Chakravarty on 19 December, 1932
In
Jnanendra Mohan Bhaduri v. Rabindra Nath Chakravarti (AIR
1933 PC 61) the Judicial Committee held that where a decree
was passed upon an award made under the provisions of the
9/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.387 to 390 of 2019
Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, an objection in the course of the
execution proceeding that the decree was made without
jurisdiction, since under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, there
is no provision for making a decree upon an award, was
competent. That was a case in which the decree was on the face
of the record without jurisdiction."
Shivshankar Gurgar vs Dilip on 3 January, 2014
16. In the case of ONGC Limited Vs. M/s. Modern Constructions
and Company reported in 2014 (1) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and in
absence of any challenge to the decree, no objection can be raised in
execution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivshankar
Gurgar Vs. Dilip reported in 2014 (2 ) SCC 465, has observed that the
executing Court has no jurisdiction to modify a decree and the relevant
portions are extracted hereunder :
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Deepa Bhargava & Anr vs Mahesh Bhargava & Ors on 16 December, 2008
"13.2 In our opinion, the order dated 23.11.2005 virtually amounts
to the modification of the decree and is without jurisdiction on the part of
the executing court, therefore, a nullity. It is a settled principle of law that
the executing court cannot go beyond the decree. It has no jurisdiction to
modify a decree. It must execute the decree as it is. This Court in Deepa
Bhargava v. Mahesh Bhargava 13 held thus:-
1