Dismissed

Ok Play India Ltd. v. Bibby Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC2 Feb 2018OMP (ENF.) (COMM.)/21/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an execution petition under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, the Court held that execution cannot proceed while Section 34 objections are pending. It clarified that jurisdictional issues regarding the objection court must be raised before the concerned District Court.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of objections pending before District Court Saket; fresh execution petition allowed after disposal of objections, pending applications dismissed.

Ok Play India Ltd. Vs Bibby Financial Services India… — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~OS-25

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 21/2018

¶4

OK PLAY INDIA LTD. .... Petitioner Through Mr. Anirudh Wadhwa, Mr.Sushant Mahajan, Mr. Harish Choudhary and Mr.Bhargav, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

BIBBY FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD..... Respondent Through Ms. Anjali Sharma, Mr.Deepak Bashta and Mr.Manish Lamba, Advs.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

¶8

O R D E R % 02.02.2018

¶9

IA No. 1602/2018 (exemption)

¶10

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 21/2018 and IA Nos. 1600-1602/2018

¶12

This execution petition is filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for execution of the Award dated 14.07.2017 and the Additional Award dated 28.09.2017.

¶13

Learned counsel for the judgment debtor states that the objections under Section 34 of the Act have already been filed before the District Court Saket and notice has been issued to the decree holder and also has been accepted by the decree holder in court. Hence, she submits that the Award cannot be executed as on date.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the decree holder refutes the contention of the learned counsel for the judgment debtor stating that in view of Section 42 of the Act, the court at Saket would not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the objections inasmuch as the judgment debtor had filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act prior to filing of the objections before this Court. He further submits that the execution was filed before the petitioner had knowledge of filing of the objections.

¶15

The admitted fact is that the Award has been passed under the Unamended Act and in view of the fact that the objections have been filed, Award cannot be executed at this stage.

¶16

Regarding the plea raised by the decree holder about the jurisdiction of the Saket Court, that is an issue which the decree holder would have to urge before the concerned District Court, Saket.

¶17

In view of the above, the present petition does not lie at this stage. The same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh execution petition after disposal of the objections.

¶18

Pending applications also stand dismissed.

¶19

JAYANT NATH, J

¶20

FEBRUARY 02, 2018 rb

Ok Play India Ltd. v. Bibby Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ok Play India Ltd. v. Bibby Financial Services India Pvt. 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

Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Limited Vs Rvr Projects Private Limited

Commercial Tyres Vs Arjun Uppal & Anr.

Orient Tyres Vs Arjun Uppal & Anr.

The Central Public Information Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi Vs Central Information Commission and Anr.

Rennaissance Buildcom Company Pvt. Limited & Ors. Vs S.E Investments Limited & Ors.

Agusta Westland S.P.A Vs Union of India and Anr.