Allowed

M/S Shyamlal Agrawal v. South Eastarn Coal Fileds Ltd.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Dec 2012CR/5/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision allowed dismissing an order that rejected execution of an arbitral award. The High Court held the executing court failed to inquire into the satisfaction status of the decree under Section 47 CPC and Order 21, remanding the case for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 06/08/2002 set aside; case remanded to Executing Court for fresh decision under Order 21 read with Section 47 CPC within six months.

M/S Shyamlal Agrawal Vs South Eastarn Coal… — Execution and Attachment | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH

¶2

CIVIL REVISION No. Q^ OF 200g PETITIONER^^_ „ 1/s. Shyamlai Agrawal (Pali), Partner Jai Prakash Agrawal, ^5r^:..S/o R.K.AgrawaI, "Anand", -•<.^••::'.'.' &^'-'1' ^^°^AW^'" Station Road, Raigarh ':^ ^ot"".,s^ ws^s^. ..^ ^! (Chhattisgarh) '^fyy^^ .^'". Versus AgESPQNDENT/ ^'/South Eastern Coa!fie!ds

¶3

^'/South Eastern Coa!fie!ds Ljmlted through its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶4

MEMOJ0-F CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION ^f5 OF CQDE QF CIVIL PRQCEDURE^

¶5

^^-^•^

¶6

^4m»-m i1SI"%iI^f?:"iJ:^=-;i^ ^•i#

¶7

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR

¶8

SB: HON'BLB MR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE J.

¶9

CIVIL REVISION No. 05 OF 2003

¶10

PETITIONER

¶11

M/s. Shyamlal Agrawal

¶12

Versus

¶13

RESPONDENT Soutti Eastern Coalfields Limited

¶14

MBMO OF CFVIL REVISION XJNDER 8ECTION 115 OF CODE OP CIVIL PROCEDURB.

¶15

Present:- Mr. Raliul Jha;, Advocate for the appUcant/petitioner^ Mr, Viaod Deshinukh, Advocate for the non-appMcaat/ respondent.

¶16

ORDBR foralt

¶17

(Pa^edon 01/12/2012)

¶18

(1| This is a civil revision filed by decree holder under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure agaiast tlie order dated 06/08/2002 passed by the Distnct Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) m CivU Execution Case No. 15/2001.

¶19

(2) By impugned order, fhe leamed Distdct Judge, BUaspur (C.G.) disraissed fhe application inade by petitioner (decrce holder) under Section 36 of the Arbitration aad Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short hereiuafter caUed The Acf).

¶20

(3) So fhe question which adses for consideration m this civil revision is whetiier tiie leamed Executing Court (Distdct Judge, BUaspur) was justtfied in disniissmg the appUcation niade by fhe petitioner,

¶21

(4) Havmg heaixl fhe learaed coimsels for tlie parties and on perusal of fhe rccord of tlie case, I am constraiiid to allow this civil revision and while settiag aside of the order

¶22

impugned dated 06/08/2002 remand the case to fhe Executing Court for decidiiig fhe appUcation afresh as indicated below.

¶23

¶24

Pacts offhe case are fhese:-

¶25

(5)

¶26

(6) An award was passed by sole arbitrator in favoiir of the petitioner herem on 03/07/2000. In teiias offhis award, fhe petitioner was awarded a suin of Rs, 27,55,698.35 Paisa with snnple interest at tlie rate of 15 % per annuia payable from 15/10/1995 tiU the date of award and Rs. 1,00,000/towards cost of arbiti'ation proceediiig. It is fhis award which was put in execution by tlie petitioner before the Distdct Jiidge, Bilaspur by inaknig aa appUcation purportixig to be under Section 36 ofthe Act, The rcspondent (judgment debtor) opposed the appUcation and contended that they have ahready made the entire payraent pursuaiit to fhe impugned awaxid to the decree holder aad fherefore, nofhiag now reiaiains payable. In ofhier words, the awaixl (decree) staxids satisfied. It is ftiis appUcation which was disinissed by fhe Executiag Coxirt giviag rise to filing ofthe appeal by the decree holder.

¶27

(7) Iu my view fhe issue iavolved in the case before tlie Distiict Judge, BUaspur should have been tiied< Keepiag in view fhe provisions ofOrder 21 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure, It is for flie reason tiiat what was put io. execution was aa award passed by sole arbitrator under fhie provisions of the Act. Section 36 of fhe Act provides tliat award paased by arbitrator is enforceable under fhe provisioxis of Code of CivU Procedure ia the saaie mariner as tf it is a deci-ee passed by fhe Coiut under tbie Code of Civil Pt'ocedure,

¶28

(8) Iii the Ught of Uie cleai' wordings of Section 36 of tlie Act, tiie application raade by tlie petitioner for execution of tlie awai'd dated 03/07/2000 should have been dealt with as ifit

¶29

'^. £€'^-•?~S.S«^ .^;'^ //y/"'^ ^ ^-T

¶30

¶31

is a decree passed by the Court and fherefore, it should have beeu treated to be an appUcation essentially iinder the provisious of Order 21 of tiie Code of CivU Procedure ratihter fhan an appUcation niade under Section 36 of the Act. Once such an application is treated on aii application iiiider Order 21 of fhe Code of Civil Procedure for execution of inoney decree of Rs. 27,55,698.35 Paisa fhen all fhe provisions contaiaed in Order 21 of the Code of Civil Proc^lurc for decidiag as to whefher decree put ia execution stood eitlier fully or parfly satisfied or not apply and the Executmg Court has to decide ttiese issues as provided by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Indeed, Section 47 ibid iii clear tei-ms provides fhat aU questions relatiiig to execution, discharge or satisfaction of tlie decree is required to be deterDiiaed by tlie Court executmg ftie decree aad tlierefore, it is necessary for the Executing Court to decide tliis question m the maiiner piDvided^{underOrder21readwitliSection47of fheCodeof} Civil Procedure. If iiecessaiy evidence of fhe parties to prove fhe docunients is needed fhen fhe same caa also be recoi-ded for recorditig a findiag of due satisfaction or dischai'ge of fhe decree (award),

¶32

(9| It is noticed fhat no such factual inquiry was held by the Executing Coiirt and the appUcation was decided by hearmg the applicaat only. It is for tliiis reason, I aia of the view that niatter reqiiires remand to fhe Executing Court for decidmg fhe application made by petitioner for eiiforcement of such decree a&'esh.

¶33

(10} Accordiagly aad in the Ught offorgoing discussioii, the civil revision succeeds aad is hereby aUowed. Iiapugned oixler dated 06/08/2002 is set-aside. The case is remanded to the Executing Court (Distdct Judge, Bilaspur, C.G,) for decidmg the application made by the petitioner referred above witliin a period of six xnonths froin fhe date of pardes appearaiice, The

¶34

paities shall be given opportunity of beuig beard aiid. to adduce evidence if necessary. The Distnct Judge, Bflaspiir, C.G, shaU decide the appUcation stdctly keeping in view the parameters necessaiy for decidmg execution matter as if filed under Section 47 ibid rcad wifh Order 21 ibicl. Parties are directed to appear before the District Jiidge/ BUaspur, C,G, 011 21stJanuaiy, 2013.

Tiwari

(11) No order as to cost(s).

¶39

Sd/Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge

¶40

'' - -(

¶41

M/S Shyamlal Agrawal v. South Eastarn Coal Fileds Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shyamlal Agrawal v. South Eastarn Coal Fileds Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Panchu Ram Vs Abdul Murad and Others

Ganeshi Bai Vs Abdul Murad and Others

Shanti Bai Vs Abdul Murad @ Tashim and Ors.

Hardeep Singh Vs Amol Singh and Others

Secretary India Chruch Council and Ano Vs Saria Claudious and Ors.

Dharmpal and Anr. Vs Shivkumar and Ors.