Dismissed

M/S Adarsh Hari Bhoomi Edu. Society and Ors. v. M/S Ashok Leyland Finance and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jan 2010CR/4150/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the petitioners challenged the executing court's jurisdiction and the respondent's standing to execute the award. The court upheld the committing court's jurisdiction under Arbitration Act Section 42 and dismissed the petition as resisted by estoppel.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed in limine.

M/S Adarsh Hari Bhoomi Edu. Society and… — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C.R. No.4150 of 2009

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.4150 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.01.2010.

¶5

M/s Adarsh Hari Bhoomi Education Society (Regd.) and another

¶6

.……Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Ashok Leyland Finance and another

¶9

……Respondents

¶10

Coram:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.

¶11

Present: Mr. Pankaj Middha, Advocate for the petitioners. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)

¶12

Judgment debtors Nos.1 and 2 have filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impunging order dated 10.06.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Executing Court i.e learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak in execution petition filed by decree-holder (respondent No.1 herein) against petitioners and respondent No.2 for execution of arbitration award dated 01.07.2006 (Annexure P-1).

¶13

The petitioners filed objections in the execution petition alleging that the Court at Rohtak had no territorial jurisdiction and also that the award was passed in favour of IndusInd Bank Ltd., Rohtak, but the execution petition has been filed by Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. It was pleaded that arbitration proceedings took place at Chennai and, therefore, Court at Rohtak had no territorial jurisdiction.

¶14

Stand of the decree-holder before the exectuting Court

¶15

C.R. No.4150 of 2009

¶16

-2-

¶17

was that the objections are not maintainable because the same were filed more than one year after the objectors had put in appearance in the executing Court and had sought many adjournments undertaking to pay the amount after sometime. It was also alleged that the objections are time barred because the same could be filed within 90 days of the passing of the award. Respondent No.1 also pleaded that Court at Rohtak had territorial jurisdiction in view of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the Act) because application under Section 9 of the Act had also been decided earlier by Court at Rohtak. It was also alleged that Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. which has filed the execution petition is a division of IndusInd Bank Ltd. as mentioned in the execution petition itself and in fact Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. had merged into IndusInd Bank Ltd.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that since all the arbitration proceedings were conducted at Chennai, therefore, Court at Rohtak had no territorial jurisdiction. The contention is completely devoid of any merit. Section 42 of the Act lays down that where any application under Part I of the Act has been made in a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that arbitration agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Admittedly in the instant case, application under Section 9 of the Act had earlier been filed in and decided by the Court at Rohtak and, therefore, in view of mandatory provision of Section 42 of the Act, Court at Rohtak alone and no

¶20

C.R. No.4150 of 2009 -3-

¶21

other Court shall have territorial jurisdiction to decide all the applications including execution application arising out of the arbitral proceedings. Consequently, it has been rightly held by the executing Court by impugned order that Court at Rohtak has territorial jurisdiction in the execution petition.

¶22

In addition to the aforesaid, admittedly the petitioners sought many adjournments for making payment and after availing of the benefit of said adjournments, the petitioners filed objections in the executing Court. In view of the aforesaid conduct, the petitioners are estopped from filing the objections in the executing Court because the petitioners had earlier sought many adjournments for making payment of the decretal amount.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the award is in favour of IndusInd Bank Ltd., but the execution petition has been filed by Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. This contention although apparently attractive is also in fact devoid of any substance.

¶24

As noticed hereinabove, the execution petition has been filed by M/s Ashok Leyland Finance as a division of IndusInd Bank. Consequently, the execution petition has also been filed by IndusInd Bank Ltd. in whose favour the arbitration award has been made.

¶25

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.

¶26

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶27

11.01.2010 A. Kaundal

M/S Adarsh Hari Bhoomi Edu. Society and Ors. v. M/S Ashok Leyland Finance and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Adarsh Hari Bhoomi Edu. Society and Ors. v. M/S Ashok Leyland Finance and Ors.

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

M/S Atma Ram Sohan Lal Vs Harjinder Singh

Dinesh Chand Vs Har Chandi etc.

Balwinder Kaur Vs Bachna

Sandeep and Ors. Vs Surinder and Ors.

Malkhan and Anr. Vs Ram Pal and Anr.

Gurmail Singh etc. Vs Lal Singh etc.