Disposed¶16

M/S Chadha and Company v. Union of India

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Dec 2024EX.P/2/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposal of execution petition after full satisfaction of award; release of deposited decretal amounts of Rs. 36,69,222/- and earlier Rs. 1,12,59,535/- (released per order dated 5.12.2023); liberty to revive execution if award not completely satisfied at later stage; M/s Chadha & Company (petitioner-decree holder) versus Union of India (respondent-judgment debtor); High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Sandeep Sharma, Judge; decision dated 03.12.2024; neutral citation 2024:HHC:13095.

What did the court decide?

Release of Rs. 36,69,222/- to the petitioner-decree holder through remittance by the Registry to its saving bank account, with liberty reserved to revive execution if the award is not found completely satisfied/executed at a later stage; pending application disposed of alongwith the execution petition. ¶16

M/S Chadha and Company Vs Union of India — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the award sought to be executed in the instant execution proceedings stands duly executed. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner-DH to get the execution revived in case the award in question is not found to be completely satisfied/executed at later stage; ordered accordingly.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

With the deposit of Rs.36,69,222/- in the Registry of this Court, the award sought to be executed in the instant proceedings stands duly executed.

¶9

Key takeaways

Since the respondent-JD pursuant to the award has already deposited the entire amount and has no objection in releasing the same in favour of the petitioner-DH, the Registry is directed to release Rs. 36,69,222/- in favour of the petitioner-DH by remitting the same to its saving bank account, details whereof already stand furnished with the Registry.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral), Execution Petition No.2 of 2020, decided 03.12.2024: With the decree-holder M/s Chadha & Company acknowledging receipt of the sums deposited in the Registry — Rs. 1,12,59,535/- released earlier pursuant to order dated 5.12.2023, and Rs.36,69,222/- deposited thereafter — the Court recorded that the award sought to be executed stood duly executed. The respondent-judgment debtor (Union of India), having deposited the entire amount pursuant to the award with no objection to its release, prompted a direction to the Registry to release Rs. 36,69,222/- in favour of the petitioner-decree holder by remitting it to its saving bank account already furnished to the Registry. Liberty was reserved to the decree-holder to seek revival of execution in case the award was later found not completely satisfied/executed. The execution petition was disposed of alongwith the pending application.

¶1

2024:HHC:13095

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Execution Petition No.2 of 2020

¶4

Date of Decision: 03.12.2024

¶5

______________________ M/s Chadha & Company	_________________________________ ……. Petitioner-Decree Holder Versus
Union of India	Respondent-Judgment Debtor
______________________ Coram:	________________________________

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the Petitioner :	Mr. J.S.Bhogal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:	Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, CGC.
___________________ Sandeep Sharma, Jud	____________________________________ ge (oral):

¶8

With the deposit of sum of Rs.36,69,222/- in the Registry

¶9

of this Court, award, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings, stands duly executed. It is not in dispute that prior to deposit of aforesaid amount, sum of Rs. 1,12,59,535/- was also deposited in the Registry of this Court, which otherwise stands released in favour of the petitioner-DH pursuant to order dated 5.12.2023.

¶10

Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner-DH, while acknowledging the factum of receipt of aforesaid amount, states that execution petition may be disposed of, but liberty may be reserved to the petitioner-DH to get the execution revived in case

¶11

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

¶13

2024:HHC:13095

¶14

award in question is not found to be completely satisfied/executed at later stage. Ordered accordingly.

¶15

Since the respondent-JD pursuant to the award has already deposited the entire amount and it has no objection in releasing the same in favour of the petitioner-DH, Registry is directed to release sum of Rs. 36,69,222/- in favour of the petitioner-DH, by remitting the same in its saving bank account, details whereof already stand furnished with the Registry of this Court.

¶16

In the aforesaid terms, the execution petition is disposed of alongwith pending application.

¶17

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶18

December 03, 2024 (shankar)

M/S Chadha and Company v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Chadha and Company v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Anand Moudgil Vs State Transport Authority Hp and Anr.

Vinay Kumar and Others Vs the Deputy Commissioner Hamirpur and Others

M/S Gmh Organics Unit-Ii Vs the Hpsebl and Others

M/S Tirupati Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Hpsebl and Others

M/S Tirupati Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Hpsebl and Others