M/S Goyal Marketing Prop. ... vs Smt. Veena Shashidhara
2023 Latest Caselaw 1165 MP

                                - : 1 :-
                                                Civil Revision No.590/2022


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                              AT INDORE
                              BEFORE

           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

                ON THE 19th OF JANUARY, 2023

                CIVIL REVISION No. 590 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
   M/S GOYAL MARKETING PROP. PRAHALAD DAS GOYAL
   (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS. SMT. SAVITA W/O PRAHALAD
1. DAS GOYAL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
   HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O 136, JANKI NAGAR EXTENSION INDORE
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   M/S GOYAL MARKETING PROP. PRAHALAD DAS GOYAL
   (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS. PRASHANT S/O PRAHALAD
2.
   DAS GOYAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
   136, JANKI NAGAR EXTENSION, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   M/S GOYAL MARKETING PROP. PRAHALAD DAS GOYAL
   (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS. ANUJ S/O PRAHALAD DAS
3.
   GOYAL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 136,
   JANKI NAGAR EXTENSION, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                  .....PETITIONER
(SHRI DHARAMDAS MOHANLAL SHAH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
THE APPLICANT.)

AND
SMT. VEENA SHASHIDHARA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O C/O
LADIES NIDIL VITAL TEMPLE ROAD SAGAR KARNATAKA
(KARNATAKA)
                                                .....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT.)



      This petition coming on for hearing on admission this day, the

court passed the following:
                                   - : 2 :-
                                                     Civil Revision No.590/2022


                                 ORDER

The legal representatives of proprietor of applicant/judgment debtor company have filed the present revision u/s. 115 of the C.P.C. against order dated 28.6.2022 whereby their application filed u/s. 47 of the C.P.C. has been dismissed.

These applicants submitted the statement of claim before the sole Arbitrator against Anand Anegundi, proprietor of M/s. Laxmi Venkaesh Agro Foods to seek an award of Rs.32,67,943/-. The non- applicant/respondent appeared before the Arbitrator. Vide award dated 12.6.2014 claim of Rs.21,91,360/- has been allowed with interest by the learned Arbitrator. The present applicants have initiated he execution proceedings as the award is having the force of a decree.

The respondent filed a Civil Suit against the present applicants before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sagar (Karnataka) as Civil Suit No. 169/2005 in which judgment and decree daed 16.2.2015 was passed. Since no appeal was filed by the present applicants, the respondent initiated the execution proceedings which came to be transferred to the Civil Court at Indore for the purposes of execution of judgment and decree. In the said execution proceedings, the applicants filed an application u/s. 47 of the C.P.C. stating that the decree dated 16.2.2015 is in-executable decree because of the award dated 12.6.2014. Learned Executing Court at Indore has dismissed the said application, hence the present revision before this Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants had no direct agreement with the respondent/decree-holder.

- : 3 :-

Civil Revision No.590/2022

They had an agreement with firm of brother of respondent/DH on 28.8.2002 and later on when the dispute arose, this Court vide order dated 5.10.2010 appointed the Arbitrator who had passed the award dated 12.6.2014, therefore, the decree dated 16.2.2015 is a nullity and in-executable.

The aforesaid ground is unsustainable as the decree dated 16.2.2015 cannot be declared as null and void in the execution proceedings. The applicants ought to have preferred a regular first appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court. The respondent was not a party in the arbitration proceedings. She submitted a separate claim by way of civil suit which has been decreed in her favour. The award dated 12.6.2014 passed by the Arbitrator is not binding on her.

The contention of the present applicants before the Executing Court that the applicants supplied the food product to the respondent on an instructions of her brother viz. Anand Anegundi under the agreement dated 28.8.2002, therefore, the award passed by the Arbitrator is binding on the respondent/decree-holder, is not tenable because he respondent/decree-holder was not party in the arbitration proceedings, therefore, the award is not binding on her. Hence, no case for interference is made out.

Accordingly, this revision is hereby dismissed in limine.

[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE.

Alok/-

Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV Date: 2023.01.20 17:10:33 +05'30'