Allowed

United India Insurance Limited, v. M/s. Golden Leaf Tobacco Company

Telangana HC27 Mar 2015AS/148/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a decree in a suit for recovery of an arbitral award. The court held the suit was not maintainable without first making the award a rule of court under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside with liberty to file execution petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree dated 25.10.2005 set aside; appeal allowed with costs; liberty granted to file execution petition.

United India Insurance Limited, Vs M/s. Golden… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶4

APPEAL SUIT No.148 of 2006

¶5

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶6

This appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 25.10.2005, in Original Suit No.1 of 2001 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ongole.

¶7

2. Suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.39,01,966.32 ps as per the Arbitration Award, dated 03.10.1996, i.e., an amount of Rs.25,38,225/- towards arbitration award and Rs.13,63,641.32 ps towards interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 05.08.1997 to 05.08.2000 and for subsequent interest at the rate of 18% per annum and for costs of the suit. The said suit was decreed with costs against the appellant/defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs.25,38,225/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 05.08.1997 till the date of deposit under three Demand Drafts and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization. The suit was dismissed against respondent Nos.2 and 3/defendant Nos.2 and 3.

¶8

3. Heard both sides.

¶9

4. Suit was filed for recovery of amount awarded in the Arbitration award, dated 03.10.1996. If the award passed by the arbitrator has not been implemented, the remedy of respondent No.1/plaintiff is to file execution petition before the competent Court. In view of the fact that arbitration award was passed under the Arbitration Act,

¶10

1940, the party has to approach the competent Court and to make the Award as a Rule of Court and thereafter, the award has to be executed. That has not been done. Hence, the suit is not maintainable and accordingly, impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside.

¶11

5. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is allowed with costs setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 25.10.2005, in Original Suit No.1 of 2001 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ongole. However, liberty is given to respondent No.1 /plaintiff to file appropriate application before the competent Court for recovery of amount awarded in the Arbitration award. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

¶12

K.C.BHANU, J

¶13

M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶14

MARCH 27, 2015

¶15

YVL

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶17

AND

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶19

APPEAL SUIT No.148 of 2006

¶20

DATE: 27.03.2015

¶21

YVL

United India Insurance Limited, v. M/s. Golden Leaf Tobacco Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Limited, v. M/s. Golden Leaf Tobacco Company

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. Madanapalle Spinning Mills Limited, Vs Rudra Kali Cotton Industries

The Commissioner Vs K.Jagadishwar Reddy

M/s.Madanpalle Spinning Mills Limited Vs Rudra Kali Cotton Industries

Roxy Steel Re Rolling Mill Hyd Vs Commissioner of Comercialtaxes

Maytas Properties Limited, Vs Ravi Manthena

Maytas Properties Limited, Vs Mr. Krishna Kilaru