Company Limited vs Laxmi Sharma And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 2942 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Company Limited vs Laxmi Sharma And Anr on 6 November, 2025

OCD-22
                                ORDER SHEET

                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                      Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                               ORIGINAL SIDE
                            (Commercial Division)

                        EC-COM/544/2025
               CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE
                        COMPANY LIMITED

                                      VS

                          LAXMI SHARMA AND ANR.


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
  Date : 6th November, 2025.

                                                                     Appearance
                                                        Mr. Avishek Guha, Adv.
                                                    Mr. Ankush Majumdar, Adv.
                                                             ..for the petitioner.


         The Court: Since the petitioner has preferred the present application

within two years from the award for execution of the same, no prior service

of notice on the award-debtor is necessary.

      It is, however, averred by the petitioner that the respondent is residing

in Gangtok and that the hypothecated vehicle, which constitutes the subject

matter of the enforcement proceeding, is presently under the possession and

control of the award debtor at Gangtok. The issue that arises for

consideration before this Court is whether, in the light of the above facts,

this Court possesses the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present

petition for enforcement of the arbitral award. The law in this regard also

stands settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sundaram

Finance Limited versus Abdul Samad reported at (2018) 3 SCC 692,

wherein it has been categorically held that an arbitral award is to be treated

as a decree of the Court for the purpose of the execution under

Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court

further clarified that such award may be enforced anywhere in the country

where the assets of the award debtor are located and that it is not necessary

to obtain a transfer of decree from the Court which would have jurisdiction

over the arbitral proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, clarifies

that the execution of arbitral award can be initiated directly before any

Court within whose jurisdiction the asset of the judgment debtor is located

without first approaching the Court where the arbitral proceedings took

place or where the award was passed.

Applying the above principle to the present case, it is evident that the

only asset sought to be attached is in the possession and the control of the

respondent situated at Gangtok.

Consequently, as the hypothecated asset in question is situated at

Gangtok and under the possession of the award debtor, the enforcement of

arbitral award shall lie before the jurisdictional Court at Gangtok. Merely

because the registered office of the petitioner is situated within the territorial

jurisdiction of this Court or because the arbitral proceedings were

conducted here, would not confer the jurisdiction upon this Court for the

purpose of execution, as execution is governed not by the situs of the

arbitration but by the location of the award debtor's assets.

In view of the foregoing, this Court is not inclined to entertain the

present petition and pass any order for the interim protection by way of

taking over the possession of the asset which is located in Gangtok.

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed for want of

territorial jurisdiction.

The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Competent Court in

accordance with law.

(GAURANG KANTH, J.)

Arsad