1. The Chamber Summons is filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (“MSEDCL”), the unsuccessful respondent to an arbitral award. These are the prayers in the Chamber Summons:

(a) That upon the Applicant depositing a sum of Rs.46,89,16,396/- this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the arbitration award dated 18th June 2004 stands fully satisfied and the Applicant stands discharged therefrom;

(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to raise attachment of Applicant’s bank account being Schedule as attached in the Warrant of attachment dated February 22, 2018 vide warrant of attachment (Exhibit “A” hereto);

(c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Chamber Summons Applicant may be allowed to deposit an amount of Rs.46,89,16,396/- through Demand Draft no 977411 dated 6th February 2018 (Bank of Maharashtra) in satisfaction of the award dated 18th June 2004 and attachment of Applicant’s Bank account being 0239256010710, Canara Bank, Tamarind Lane branch be raised;

2. The Chamber Summons was first moved on 24th February 2018. As I was unavailable that day, MSEDCL moved before A.K. Menon J. It cited ‘grave urgency’, and actually applied after court hours, saying that the attachment in execution of its bank accounts needed to be raised immediately. Given the time when it was moved, Menon J directed it be placed before the regular Bench on 26th February 2018. On that day, 26th February 2018, at the request of Mr. Dada for the decree holder, DSL Enterprises Pvt. Ltd (“DSL”), it was stood over by a day. On 27th February 2018, I passed an ad-interim order. I will return to the details of this order presently, but in sum, since MSEDCL (a) deposited in Court (i) an amount of Rs.46,89,16,396 admittedly due to DSL; and (ii) an amount of Rs.98,54,06,315 claimed by DSL; and (b) made a statement in regard to a potential deduction of tax at source, I ordered the raising of the attachment of MSEDCL’s bank accounts.

3. The parties then completed their filings, to the stage of a surrejoinder. I have now heard Mr. Mody for MSEDCL and Mr. Dada for DSL at some length. In my view, and for the reasons that follow, this entire application is not just untenable in law and unsupported by facts; it is purely dilatory, certainly vexatious and has resulted in a quite unforgivable waste of judicial time.

4. An abbreviated statement of facts is thus. On 18th June 2004, MSEDCL suffered an award in the amount of Rs.179 crores in an arbitration claim brought by DSL. The arbitral tribunal (Mr. Justice VD Tulzapurkar, Mr. Justice SC Pratap and Mr. Justice ML Pendse) awarded interest at 10% per annum from the date of the award until payment. MSEDCL was also held liable to pay costs. These were quantified at Rs.1 crore, a very significant sum by any standards, and especially in 2004. There was no separate award of interest pendente lite.

5. MSEDCL filed a challenge Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. There were certain intervening events and proceedings, but these are not of immediate relevance to the present considerations. That challenge Petition was ultimately dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court (Mrs. R.S. Dalvi J) on 18th March 2009. She imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000/- on MSEDCL.

6. DSL moved in execution and proceeded to attach MSEDCL’s bank accounts. The single Judge hearing Execution Applications (SC Dharmadhikari J) directed MSEDCL to furnish a bank guarantee in the amount of Rs.75 crores and raised attachment on MSEDCL’s bank accounts subject to fulfilment of that condition.

7. MSEDCL appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. On 2nd May 2009, a Division Bench (JN Patel J, as he then was, and Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar J) stayed the execution of the decree subject to two conditions; (i) that MSEDCL would deposit Rs.179 crores in Court before 29th June 2009; and (ii) that MSEDCL would furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.86 crores and would keep this alive until final disposal of the Appeal.