Dismissed

Raju.P.R v. Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance

Kerala HC22 Jun 2016OP(C)/1183/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Original Petitioner challenged sale proclamation in execution of an arbitration award, arguing non-service of the award copy and arbitrator's address rendered it non-executable. Court held non-service did not make award non-executable as petitioners could obtain copy from the Arbitrator and no statutory duty to serve address existed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for interference with the execution proclamation was dismissed; order operates against the petitioner.

Raju.P.R Vs Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/1ST ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 1183 of 2016 () --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

RAJU.P.R.,AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. KOCHUPARAMBAN RAMAN, VAZHITHALA P.O,PUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE COMPANY (P) LTD, NO 49,ARCOT ROAD, KODAMBAKOM, CHENNAI 24 R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA SRI.BABU SHANKER SMT.GANGA A.SANKAR

¶11

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

¶13

OP(C).No. 1183 of 2016 ()

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶16

P1:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN CMP NO 420 OF 09 DATED 1-08-09 ON THE FILE OF THE J F C M-1, MUVATTUPUZHA.
P2:	A TRUE COPY OF THE EP NO 54 OF 2012 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO 651 OF 2010 DATED 17-08-2012 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA
P3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE EA NO 5 OF 2013 IN EP NO 54 OF 2012 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO 651 OF 2010 DATED 24-05- 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA
P4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SEND BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ALLEGED ARBITRATOR DATED 5-3-2012
P5:	A TRUE COPY OF THE RETURNED COVER WITH ENDORSEMENT LEFT DATED 11-3-2013
P6:	A TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS WITH A DRAFT SALE PROCLAMATION ISSUED IN EP NO98 OF 2015 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO 651 OF 2010 DATED 16-2-2016 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT,THODUPUZHA
P7:	A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN EP NO 98 OF 2015 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO 651 OF 2010 DATED 27-1-2016 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA.
RESPOND	ENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

K. HARILAL, J.

O.P. (C) No.1183 of 2016-O

¶22

-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2016

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner herein is the 1^st Judgment Debtor in E.P.No.98/2015 on the files of the Additional District Court, Thodupuzha, which is filed by the respondent herein to execute an award passed in Arbitration Case No.651/2010, by the Arbitrator at Chennai.

¶25

The petitioner entered appearance in the Execution Petition, filed objection and contended that he has not been served with duly certified English version of the award and he has already filed an application seeking a direction to the Decree Holder to produce the present address of the Arbitrator; but the same also has not been served so far. Therefore, unless he gets the present address of the Arbitrator, he is unable to challenge the award. If that be so, the

¶26

-: 2 :-

¶27

O.P. (C) No.1183 of 2016

¶28

award is also not an executable one. The present grievance of the petitioner is that the court below has not considered the said application; but issued Ext.P6 proclamation for sale. Thus, the procedure adopted by the court below is irregular and illegal.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments contending that unless the readable copy of the award or the present address of the Arbitrator is served by the Decree Holder, the decree is not an executable one.

¶31

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Arbitrator is none other than the Registrar of Chits, appointed by the State Government, by Notification, under the Chit Funds Act, 1982. Therefore, the Arbitrator has a permanent office at Chennai and the petitioner could have obtained the readable copy of the award from the said office, on application. So, the respondent is not liable to serve the copy of the award or the present address of the Arbitrator.

¶32

O.P. (C) No.1183 of 2016

¶33

-: 3 :-

¶34

Going by Secs.61 and 64 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, it could be seen that as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Arbitrator is none other than the Registrar of Chits, appointed by the State Government, by Notification, under the Chit Funds Act, 1982. Certainly, the Registrar of Chits may have a permanent office at Chennai and the petitioner could have obtained the readable copy of the award from that office. But, the petitioner has not chosen to do so. However, the non-service of the readable copy of the award cannot be a ground to challenge the execution of the award, particularly, when he could have obtained the readable copy from the Office of the Arbitrator directly. In other words, the non-service of readable copy of the award to the respondent does not make the decree non-executable, as no statutory liability is imposed on him. So also, the award holder is not liable to serve the present address of the Arbitrator to the respondent as he is also a party in the arbitration proceedings. Therefore, the ground raised in the objection in the Execution Petition is unsustainable and there is no reason to interfere with

¶35

-: 4 :-

¶36

O.P. (C) No.1183 of 2016

¶37

Ext.P6.

¶38

Consequently, this Original Petition (Civil) will

¶39

stand dismissed accordingly.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)

¶42

Nan/

¶43

//true copy//

¶44

P.S. to Judge

Raju.P.R v. Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju.P.R v. Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shylaja K. Vs Shanmukhan K.B.

Nisha Rani Vs Prabha

Unnikrishnan Vs Classic Finance

Meerannan Vs Nazeema

Mohankumar Vs P.G. Aravindakshan Nair

Gangadharan Nair Vs R.Krishnakumar