Council Of Scientific And ... vs M/S. Intellisys Technologies And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1175 Cal/2

OD - 47

                                EC 87/2020
                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                      Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                               ORIGINAL SIDE



          COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSRIAL RESEARCH (CSIR)
                                VERSUS
           M/S. INTELLISYS TECHNOLOGIES AND RESEARCH LTD.



  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR

Date : 29th September, 2021.

Appearance:

Mr. Srinjoy Das, Adv., for the decree-holder.

Mr. Aritra Basu, Mr. P.P. Bishwal, Advs., for the judgment-debtor.

The Court: This is an application for execution of an award dated 5

September 2017. It is submitted by all the parties that the award has become

final, binding and enforceable. The award is for approximately a sum of

Rs.3,80,50,389/-.

The judgment-debtor is represented. In fact, the matter had appeared on

15 September, 2021 when the judgment-debtor was represented and sought for a

copy of the execution application. Subsequently, by an order dated 21 September

2021 it was recorded that the execution application had been duly received by

the judgment-debtor. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the judgment-debtor had

notice of the execution application and has been duly served.

Mr. Das appears on behalf of the decree-holder and seeks an order in

terms of prayer (e) of the Tabular Statement.

Mr. Basu appears on behalf of the judgment-debtor and submits that since

the award is dated 5 September 2017 and has been filed on 19 February 2020,

he is entitled to a notice under Order 21 Rule 22(1) of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908. He also submits that he is entitled as a matter of right to show

cause in terms of Order 21 Rule 22(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further

submits that in the show cause notice, which he proposes to file he will raise all

points to contest the execution proceedings.

During the course of hearing, this Court had requested Mr. Basu to

highlight orally the objections he has in respect of the award being executed by

this Court. It was fairly submitted that he would try to demonstrate that this

Court has no jurisdiction to execute the award. However, no grounds were urged

by the judgment-debtor to demonstrate as to why this Court has no jurisdiction.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, I am of the view that

since the only prayer of the decree-holder is for a direction that the judgment-

debtor to file their Affidavit of Assets and the award dated 5 September 2017 has

become final, binding and enforceable, there shall be an order in terms of prayer

(e) of the Tabular Statement.

On the aspect as to the mandatory nature of a notice under Order 21 Rule

22(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, I am of the view that, it would be

evident from Order 21 Rule 22(2) that the Court can dispense with issuance of

notice for reasons to be recorded. Since the judgment-debtor had entered

appearance in the proceedings and sought for a copy of the execution application

which was duly served on him, I am of the view that it would cause unnecessary

and unreasonable delay and defeat the ends of justice if another notice was

required to be served on the judgment-debtor under Order 21 Rule 22(1) of the

CPC. I am also of the view that the effect of sub-rule (2) is to give the Court a

discretion in not issuing a notice.

Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in view of

the previous orders of the Court passed in this proceeding and the fact that the

judgment-debtor has entered appearance, sought for a copy of the execution

application and has also appeared, I am of the view that service of any further

notice in terms of Order 21 Rule 22(1) would be an idle and futile formality and

would cause unreasonable, undue and inordinate delay and would also

ultimately defeat the ends of justice.

Mr. Basu prays for six weeks' time to file the Affidavit of Assets. Such

prayer is allowed. The judgment-debtor is directed to file the Affidavit of Assets in

Form No.16A of Appendix - E of the Code of Civil Procedure within 15 November

2021. In default of filing such Affidavit of Assets, appropriate orders for warrant

of arrest would be issued against the judgment-debtor.

Let this matter appear as a 'Specially Fixed Matter' on 18 November 2021.

In the meantime, the judgment-debtor is granted liberty to file an affidavit

or any application taking all points as to why the decree dated 5 September 2017

is not executable.

(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)

S.Das AR[CR]