Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 508
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Real Fab India Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam – Appellant
Versus
Rashtriya Ispath Nigam Ltd., Visakhapatnam – Respondent
CRP No.2936 of 2024
Decided on : 21-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Y.N. Anjaneyacharyulu
For the Respondent: Gopal S. Hegde rep. by Koneru Prabhakara Rao
An execution petition cannot proceed if the underlying award is not valid and complete, especially when grounds for jurisdictional issues and maintainability have been previously established.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Revision Petition - The petitioner sought to challenge the Special Court's order rejecting the execution petition as not maintainable. The Special Court ruled on multiple grounds concerning the executability of the award under the MSMED Act and the Arbitration Act. (Paras 1, 4, 10, 11, 17)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Special Court held that the absence of the required signatures rendered the award non-executable. The council lacked jurisdiction as the claimant did not file the necessary memorandum. (Paras 8, 28)
(C) Maintainability of Execution Petition - The court emphasized that an award devoid of validation cannot be executed despite procedural compliance cited by the claimant. (Paras 22, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Real Fab India Pvt. Ltd., contested an order dismissing its execution petition for an award under the MSMED Act. The original award was partly challenged, and multiple attempts to enforce it were made following procedural complications and questions regarding jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The petition was dismissed due to the award's invalidity and non-executability. The court affirmed that a completely and validly signed award is necessary for execution.
Issues: The main controversies included whether the execution petition could proceed given the absence of requisite signatures on the award, and if grounds for maintainability had been adequately addressed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the execution petition was rightly dismissed as maintainable based on the lack of evidence for a valid award and the jurisdictional issues identified previously.
Result: Civil revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and procedural background. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's claims and prior orders. (Para 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 3. background of award's execution status. (Para 4 , 10) |
| 4. description of the claim and its legal context. (Para 6 , 21) |
| 5. determination points in special court. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 6. execution petition closure and related orders. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. rejection grounds in execution context. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 8. analysis of the maintainability issue. (Para 18 , 27 , 29) |
| 9. counsel's arguments regarding execution of the award. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 10. arguments based on judicial precedent. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 11. conclusion on award validity and execution. (Para 28 , 30 , 36) |
| 12. final judgment and order of dismissal. (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Gopal S. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Koneru Prabhakara Rao, learned Counsel, representing Sri Y. N. Anjaneyacharyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-M/s. Real Fab India Private Limited, Plot No.15, Daspalla Hills, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Managing Director-Koneru Karunakara Rao, the claimant in Claim No.21C/IFC/2013/19266, being aggrieved from the Order dated 17.09.2024 passed in CEP GR Nos.1694 and 1772 of 2024, by the Judge, Special Court for trial and disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam (in short 'Special Court').
3. The prayer in the civil revision petition is to set aside the Order dated 17.09.2024 and to restore the petition on the file of the Special Court with effect from the date it was presented for enforcement and to proceed further in accordance with law in a time bound manner and pass such other order/orders as deemed fit and proper by this Court.
4. By order dated 17.09.2024, under challenge, the learned Special Judge rejected the execution petition as not maintainable.
5. The petitioner herein is a Small Scale Industrial Undertaking holding Registration No.01-20-03216-PMT-SSI, dated 24.03.1984. The petitioner was the claimant in the Case No.21C/IFC/2013/19266. An Award dated 25.10.2018 was passed in its favour by Andhra Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council at Vijayawada (in short 'Council') established under Section 20 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short 'MSMED Act'). The claimant made a claim of Rs.22,74,31,117/- against the respondent herein, M/s. Rashtriya Ispath Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam, represented by its General Manager in short 'RINL').
6. The operative part of the Award dated 25.10.2018 is as under :
"1. The reference Petition No.21C/IFC/2013/19226 is allowed in terms of prayer.
2. The judgment debtor is required to pay to the claimant an amount of Rs.11,79,38,792/- (Rupees Eleven crores seventy-nine lakhs thirty-eight thousand seven hundred and ninety two only) as principle and interest on Rs.12,54,38,792/- (Rupees Twelve crores fifty four lakhs thirty eight thousand seven hundred and ninety two only) as per the MSMED Act, 2006 from the appointed day i.e., 45 days from the Date of Termination i.e., 01.11.2010 to 21.09.2017 and interest on principle amount of Rs.11,79,38,792/- (Rupees Eleven crores seventy-nine lakhs thirty-eight thousand seven hundred and ninety two only) from 22.09.2017 to till date as per the MSMED Act, 2006.
3. The Principle & Interest amount is to be paid by the judgment debtor to the claimant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.
4. No order as to cost.
5. The case is disposed of and closed."
7. The respondent-RINL, filed petition-CAOP No.16 of 2019 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'Arbitration Act') to set aside the award dated 25.10.2018.
8. The Special Court in the light of the contentions raised before it, framed the following points for determination :
1. "Whether the award filed in the case attested b
