Vadodara District Panchayat vs Bipin Bhailalbhai Chauhan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6828 Guj

     C/SCA/17643/2014                          ORDER DATED: 01/08/2022




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

   R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17643 of 2014
                           With
   CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2018
                            In
   R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17643 of 2014
======================================
             VADODARA DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
                          Versus
         BIPIN BHAILALBHAI CHAUHAN & 1 other(s)
======================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DIPEN C SHAH(3374) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
======================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
                        Date : 01/08/2022
                           ORAL ORDER

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

is filed challenging an order passed below Exhibit-9 and 10

dated 03.11.2014 and 13.01.2014 respectively in Regular

Execution Application No. 198 of 2014, passed by the 9 th

Additional District Judge, Vadodara, whereby written objections

filed by the judgment debtor vide Exhibit-9 came to be rejected

as also for the absence of judgment debtor, his advocate and

in absence of any adjournment application, a warrant for

confiscation of moveable property came to be issued against

the judgment debtor.

2. Heard Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the

petitioner. He has submitted that as objected to before the

C/SCA/17643/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2022

executing Court, an execution has come to be filed after about

21 years, and therefore, it is barred by delay. He has submitted

that as objected to before the executing Court, the award of

the arbitrator is not in accordance with the arbitration

agreement but by the officer of the post lower than the same

mentioned in the arbitration agreement.

3. He has further submitted that no consent of the judgment

debtor was obtained to appoint the said arbitrator, and

therefore, the decree is not binding to him, the execution of

which is asked for. Therefore, he has submitted that the orders

passed by executing Court below Exhibit-9 and 10 dated

03.11.2014 as also 13.01.2014 respectively are required to be

quashed and set aside.

4. As against that Mr. Dipen C. Shah, learned advocate for

the respondent - judgment creditor, submitted that award

declared by the arbitrator has not been challenged by way of

appropriate proceedings, that too, within the period of

limitations by the judgment debtor, and therefore, no objection

should be entertained on merit of the decree passed.

5. He has further submitted that it is rightly held by the

executing Court, rejecting the objection raised on merit of the

case, and therefore, no interference is called for in this

petition.

C/SCA/17643/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2022

6. Considering the submissions made by the appearing

parties as also considering the very fact that the award of the

arbitrator, the execution of which is asked for, has become

final and challenge to the same at the instance of the

judgment debtor has already ended by not even condoning the

delay in preferring the appropriate proceedings before the

appropriate Court. Thus, as an executing Court, it cannot go

behind the decree and it has to be executed as it is and in that

view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the

impugned order, whereby objection raised by the petitioner -

judgment debtor came to be rejected as also order issuing

warrant for confiscation of moveable property. Hence, this

petition is rejected.

Notice discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier,

stands vacated.

In view of disposal of the main matter, connected Civil

Application also stands disposed of.

(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.) Raj