Telangana High Court
P Yadagiri Rao, R.R.Dist vs Smt. P Indumathi, R.R.Dist on 4 June, 2021
Bench: B.Vijaysen Reddy
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
and
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.595 of 2017
% Date: 06-02-2018
#Between:
M/s. Religare Finvest Limited
Regd. Office at D-3, P3B, District Centre,
Saket, New Delhi and Branch office at
Flat No.601-A, B and C, 6th Floor, Astral Heights,
6-3-352/2 and 3, Besides Shanbagh Hotel,
Panjagutta, Hyderabad, rep. by its Authorised
Signatory, Mr. Ramparasad, S/o. Ramasharma,
Legal Officer, Hyderabad.
... petitioner/Decree Holder
Vs.
1. M/s. Ratan Foods, Having its Office at 2-3-745/A Z T Nagar,
Amberpet, 6 No Cross Roads, Hyderabad, also at H.No.2-3-745/1,
Amberpet, Hyderabad-500013.
2. Komal Dung, Flat No.301, Door No.1-2-593/A/31, Lwegend-IV
Classic Apartments, Domalguda, Hyderabad, also at 2-3-745/A Z T
Nagar, Amberpet, 6 No Cross Roads, Hyderabad also at H.No.2-3-
745/1, Amberpet, Hyderabad-500013.
3. Mr. Ratanjeet Singh Sardar, S/o. Late Sardar Rajender Singh, Alias
Rajender Singh Dung, R/o. H.No.1-2-593/31, Flat No.301, Legend
Apartments, Domalguda, Hyderbad-500029, also at 2-3-745/A Z T
Nagar, Amberpet, 6 No Cross Roads, Hyderabad also at H.No.2-3-
745/1, Amberpet, Hyderabad-500013.
4. Simrat Foods, having its office at 2-3-745/1, First Floor, Amberpet,
Hyderabad-500013, also at 2-3-745/A Z T Nagar, Amberpet, 6 No
Cross Roads, Hyderabad-500013.
.. Respondents/Judgment Debtors
! Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. G. Kalyan Chakravarthy
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
(2011) 6 CTC 11
(2007) 8 SCC 466
2017 (6) ALD 5 (DB)
VRS,J & TA,J
C.R.P.No.595/2018
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.595 of 2018
ORDER: (per VRS, J)
Aggrieved by the refusal of the Executing Court to entertain a
petition for the execution of the Arbitral Award, the Award Holder has
come up with the above revision petition.
2. Heard Mr. G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
3. The petitioner secured an Arbitral Award as against the
respondents herein, at New Delhi. The Award is stated to be an ex parte
Award.
4. Since the respondents are carrying on business at Hyderabad,
the petitioner filed an Execution Petition on the file of the Commercial
Court cum Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The Court
returned the Execution Petition on 21.08.2017 questioning the
maintainability of the Execution Petition without the transmission of the
Arbitral Award from the competent authority. The petitioner represented
the Execution Petition, by relying upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court
and a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the effect that there
was no necessity to get the Award transmitted.
5. However, the Court below again returned the papers on the very
same ground, viz., that the objection regarding maintainability without
getting the Award transmitted, will hold good. Hence the Award holder
has come up with the above revision petition.
VRS,J & TA,J
C.R.P.No.595/2018
6. One of us (VRS,J) had an occasion to consider the question as to
whether after the advent of the 1996 Act, there was any necessity for an
Award Holder to get the Award transmitted from a Court within whose
jurisdiction, the Arbitral proceedings took place, to a Court in which the
Award is sought to be executed, in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,
Mumbai v. Sivakama Sundari1. After taking note of the judgment of
the Delhi High Court in Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. V. Numaligarh
Refinery Ltd.2, the Madras High Court went into the provisions of
Sections 37, 38, 39, 41, 43 and 45 of the Code and came to the
conclusion that the expression "Court which passed the decree" appearing
in Section 37, will not include the Arbitral Tribunal, which passed an
Award. The Madras High Court also took note of the provisions of the
1996 Act and the crucial distinction between the 1940 Act and 1996 Act.
Since Section 36 of the 1996 Act makes the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal
deemed to be a decree of Court, it would follow as a corollary that the
Arbitral Tribunal is in the position of a Court which passed the decree,
though it may not exactly be the same. The provisions of Order 21 Rules
5, 6 and 10 of the C.P.C read with Section 38 cannot be applied to the
execution of an Award. Therefore, it was held in Kotak Mahindra Bank
Ltd., that there is no question of treating the Court within whose
jurisdiction the arbitral proceedings took place, as a Court which passed
the decree within the meaning of Section 37 of the Code, so as to oblige
the Award Holder to get the decree transmitted.
7. In fact, it was also pointed out in paragraph-26 of the decision in
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., that the Awards passed by the Registrar of
Chits, under the Chit Funds Act of the respective Sates, are also normally
(2011) 6 CTC 11
(2007) 8 SCC 466
VRS,J & TA,J
C.R.P.No.595/2018
executed by Civil Courts, without anyone transmitting the same to any
Court. Following the said decision, this Court also held in Shriram
Transport Finance Co. Ltd., v. S. Salauddin3 that there is no question
of requiring the Award Holder to get decree transmitted. Hence the action
of the Court below in repeatedly returning the Execution Petition on the
ground that the petitioner should get the Award transmitted is more than
what is stipulated under the 1996 Act.
8. As a mater of fact, four High Courts, viz., Madhya Pradesh,
Delhi, Madras and this Court have now taken the view that there is no
necessity to get the Award transmitted. It is true that Kerala High Court
took a different view and held that even the Awards are required to be
transmitted. But we do not, with great respect, subscribe to the said view.
9. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The
petitioner is directed to represent the Execution Petition along with a copy
of this order. Upon the Execution Petition being represented, the Court
below shall number the same, if it is otherwise in order, order notice to
the respondents and proceed in accordance with law. The Registry is
directed to return the original Execution Petition to the counsel for the
petitioner to enable him to represent the same before the Court below.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
revision shall stand closed.
________________________
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J
_____________________
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
6th February, 2018
Js
(2017) 6 ALD 5 (DB)
VRS,J & TA,J
C.R.P.No.595/2018
VRS,J & TA,J
C.R.P.No.595/2018
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.595 of 2018
( per VRS, J.)
6th February, 2018.
Js
