Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 638
In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (A.P. Transco), Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Equipment Conductors & Cables Limited - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 3601 of 2016
Decided On : 07-12-2016
For the Petitioner: N. Siva Reddy
For the Respondent: M.V. Pratap Kumar
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 227 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 36 – Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 - Section 19 - 85 (2) (a) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 115 - Constitution of India is filed challenging the order passed in by the II Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court Hyderabad on the file of the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana preferred against the order in on the file of the Additional District Judge Chandigarh preferred against the Award on the file of Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council - Respondent herein has supplied electric conductors to the predecessor of the petitioner herein and though the amount was paid as per invoices with some delay, the respondent without any protest has received entire amount - Later the respondent initiated the arbitration proceedings by filing claim petition before the Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council against the petitioner herein under the provisions Interest on Delayed Payments Act - Petitioner herein having received the notices in the said case filed its counter and contested the matter - After hearing both the parties the Council partly allowed the claim petition passed Award for an amount of in respect of invoice appended as annexure A.W.1 to the said order and rejected rest of the claim made by the respondent herein – Held, Application for execution can be presented to an Arbitrator by the holder of an award, under Order XXI Rule on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal is the Court which passed the decree provisions of Section of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be applied to an Arbitral Tribunal - To put it differently it is only when an award holder is entitled to file an execution petition before the Arbitral Tribunal itself under that the provisions of Order Rules would come to play - Application for execution can be filed before the Arbitral Tribunal by treating the Arbitral Tribunal as the Court which passed the decree the Arbitral Tribunal cannot also order the transfer of the decree to any other Court for its execution - Similarly there is no provision either in the Code or anywhere else, to treat a court within whose jurisdiction the Arbitral proceedings took place as the court which passed the decree - It is only when a court within whose jurisdiction the arbitral award was passed is taken to be the court which passed the decree within the meaning of Section and Order XXI Rule of the Code that the award holder would be entitled to seek transmission from that court - Persuaded by the law declared by the Madras High Court and Delhi High Court I am of the firm view that award need not be transferred on that ground the garnishee order cannot be set aside - Petitioner is in respect of item appended as annexure A.W.1 and the award in respect of item Nos.1 to 25 was set aside by the High Court - Court has to pass appropriate order subject to compliance of requirement leaving it open to the petitioner to move appropriate application before the objecting Court under Section of the Act as amended - I find no ground to set aside the award pertaining to item - Order issued by the II Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court Hyderabad for recovery of amount covered by item is illegal since there is no executable award in view of the order - Revision is allowed.
1. This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed challenging the order dated 30.06.2016 passed in E.P.No.33 of 2016 by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in F.A.O.No.34 of 2015 on the file of the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 29.01.2016 preferred against the order in A.A.No.399 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh dated 28.08.2014 preferred against the Award No. HMSEFC/2010/08 (case No.7) on the file of Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chandigarh dated 21.06.2010 and to set aside the same.
2. During the year 1998, the respondent herein has supplied electric conductors to the predecessor (combined state) of the petitioner herein and though the amount was paid as per invoices with some delay, the respondent without any protest has received entire amount. Later, the respondent initiated the arbitration proceedings by filing claim petition before the Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (hereinafter, for short, referred to as “Council”) at Chandigarh in Case No.7 Award No.HMSEFC/2010/08, against the petitioner herein under the provisions of “Interest on Delayed Payments Act, 1993”. The petitioner herein having received the notices in the said case filed its counter and contested the matter. After hearing both the parties the Council partly allowed the claim petition, passed Award dated 21.06.2010 for an amount of Rs.22,42,619/- in respect of invoice Nos.26 to 45 appended as annexure A.W.1 to the said order and rejected rest of the claim made by the respondent herein.
3. Being aggrieved by the said Award dated 21.06.2010 passed by the Council, the petitioner filed Arbitration O.P.No.523 of 2010 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, for short, referred to as “the Act”) and deposited an amount of Rs.16,81,964/- by way of Bankers Cheque No.904081 dated 11.11.2010 drawn on the State Bank of Hyderabad, Vidyut Soudha Branch, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, obtained in the name of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, towards 75% of the award amount, in view of statutory requirement under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short “MSMED Act 2006”) and the same was credited to the said O.P.
4. On receipt of the notices in the arbitration case No.399 of 2010 filed by the respondent herein at District Court, Chandigarh, the petitioner herein filed Transfer Petition before the Supreme Court to get the arbitration case filed by the respondent herein before the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, transferred to the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad on the ground of jurisdiction, but the same was dismissed and the O.P. filed by the petitioner was transferred to the file of learned District Judge, Chandigarh, which was re-numbered as Arbitration Case No.580 of 2010 before Chandigarh Court and during the pendency of the said Arbitration Case, the petitioner has also deposited an amount of Rs.1,35,203/- towards difference of the amount before the Chandigarh Court to the credit of Arbitration Case No.580 of 2010. Thus, in all, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.18,17,167/- and the respondent herein has encashed the said amount together with interest accrued thereon.
5. Upon hearing, the District Court at Chandigarh passed an order without considering the grounds urged, dismissed the arbitration Case No.580 of 2010 by order dated 27.08.2014 on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited 75% of the awarded amount with interest.
6. The respondent filed Arbitration Case No.399 of 2010 challenging the order of the Council dated 21.06.2010 dismissing the claim covered by Sl.Nos.1 to 25 of the Annexure A.W.1. The District
