Calcutta High Court
Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd vs Lmj International Ltd on 13 January, 2021
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
EC/487/2013
IA No:GA/3/2018
(OLD NO.GA/2029/2018
SLEEPWELL INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.
Versus
LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD.
EC/488/2013
IA No:GA/3/2018
(OLD NO.GA/2006/2018
SLEEPWELL INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.
Versus
LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Date : 13th January, 2021.
Appearance:
Mr. Mr.Tilak Bose, Sr.Advocate
Mr.Shailendra Jain, Advocate
Mrs. Swati Agarwal, Advocate
...for award holder.
Mr.S.N.Mitra, Sr. Advocate
Ms.Sananda Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
Ms.Supriya Ranjan Saha, Advocate
Mr.Subhrangsu Maiti, Advocate
...for respondent.
The Court:-Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate appears
on behalf of award holder and makes submissions in reply.
He submits, view taken by Delhi High Court in Fuerst Day
Lawson Limited (supra) available at 2012 SCC OnLine Del
5647 would then render unenforceable a foreign award where
award holder does not apply to Court for refusal to enforce
it. Not only that, section 48 in Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 contemplates a prior execution
application for it to be made since enforcement stands
invoked against the party, who has to furnish proof of it
being unenforceable.
Hearing on the question of whether the decree has
been satisfied, to record execution and discharge, was on
Mr. Mitra's submission that taking date of reckoning to be
date of decree, being date of award (10th April, 2013),
amounts along with interest have been paid. Further
examination of award debtor for continuance of the
execution proceedings therefore cannot be had. In this
context, inter alia, judgements have been cited, in
particular, Forasol (supra) [1984 (Supp.) SCC 263] by Mr.
Mitra and Fuerst Day Lawson Limited (supra) [2001] 6 SCC
356 by Mr. Bose, learned senior advocate appearing on
behalf of award holder. He reiterates that Supreme Court,
by the said decision, had declared the law to be, separate
application under section 49 is not necessary.
In paragraph 31 of Fuerst Day Lawson Limited (supra)
following sentence is there.
"The only difference as found is that while under
the Foreign Awards Act a decree follows, under the
new Act the foreign award is already stamped as the
decree."
In paragraph 68 of Forasol (supra) following sentence is
there.
"On the decree being passed in terms of the
said award the said award became merged in the
said decree and the sum of FF 5,89,727.51
payable to Forasol under the said award became a
judgment debt payable to Forasol under the said
decree and, as pointed out above, at the time of
passing the decree the Court would have to
direct payment of the rupee equivalent of this
foreign currency debt only at the rate of
exchange prevailing on the date of the decree."
Award debtor is required to demonstrate, with
reference to record in order dated 11th December, 2019, the
amounts paid, according to it, have satisfied the awards on
awarded amounts and interest, taking date of reckoning of
exchange rate to be date of the awards. To that end award
debtor will file supplementary affidavit on adjourned date
upon advance copy served.
List on 20th January, 2021.
(ARINDAM SINHA, J.)
nm
