The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of bona fides and compliance with undertakings in execution proceedings, emphasizing the consequences of deliberate avoidance of payment and dilatory tactics.

JUDGMENT

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. - Introduction:

Law is an ideal that sets standards of conduct for society. Litigation is its bye-product. But it will have neither-neither an ideal nor a standard. It is Oliver Wendell Holmes's 'bad man' [1] . This bad man is hydra-headed; the more heads you slay, the more sprout. Here is one such case out of an inexhaustible stock [2]. Close to a decade ago, the creditor gets an award; the debtor challenges it all the way up to the Apex Court- without success.

2. Then begins the excruciating execution. A few rounds of interlocutory orders and their ritualistic challenge before this Court take place. Once, one such order has, travelled up to the Supreme Court. All with predictable failures. Meanwhile, the award amount swells with interest, but that interest imposition is a flea bite for a businessman. So in the end, the choice is between paying a few crore rupees immediately and closing the litigation or spending a few lakhs and dragging it. The choice is obvious. Order 21 CPC is a procedural paradise even for a hopeless pessimist. Horses may fly.

Facts:

3. The first petitioner is a partnership firm. The second and the third petitioners, besides the second respondent, are the partners. Initially, they had a contract with the first respondent company. That contract gave rise to certain disputes, and they were arbitrated. Eventually, on 19.5.2012, the first respondent company secured an award for Rs.9.11 crore.

4. Aggrieved, the petitioners and the second respondent, who will be compendiously referred to as the partnership firm, applied to the District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Arbitration Act"). But on merits, the Principal District Court declined to interfere; it dismissed that application on 24.9.2014. Further aggrieved, the partnership firm appealed to this Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Again, this Court, through its judgment dated 7.8.2015, dismissed that appeal. Though the partnership firm once again filed a review petition, that yielded no result.

5. Unfazed, the partnership firm took the matter to the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition; but there too it failed.

6. On 21st September 2014, the first respondent company laid execution. It was before the Principal District Judge, North Goa, in Execution Application No.100/2015. Later, those Execution proceedings were transferred to the Principal District Judge, South Goa. In Eexcution Application No.100/2015, the first respondent company (now onwards called "the decree-holder" ) filed two applications one under Rule 41 and the other under Rule 37 of Order 21 CPC, for simultaneous execution.

7. As seen from the record, on 25.2.2016, the Executing Court issued a warrant of arrest. Questioning this warrant of arrest, the partnership firm and its partner (now onwards called "the judgmentdebtors") filed WP No.295/2016. This Court dismissed it on 8.6.2016. Against that order of dismissal, the judgment debtors filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. That one too failed on 26.3.2018.

8. Owing to the lapse of time, the earlier warrant did not survive, so on 26.11.2016, the Executing Court issued a second order for the judgment-debtors' arrest. Again, this order of detention was challenged in WP No.187/2007 but without any success. This Court dismissed that Writ Petition on 12.4.2017.

9. In the face of these successive failures, the judgment-debtors it seems, have tried, as they called it, a negotiated settlement. The decreeholder, too, agreed. And that led to a compromise on 20.6.2017.

10. As a result of that settlement, the judgment-debtors undertook to pay Rs.9 crore as a full and final settlement-in four instalments. The terms of the settlement have also recorded that if the judgment debtors defaulted on any instalment, the decree-holder would forfeit the amounts thus far paid. In this context, we may note that as part of the first instalment, the judgment-debt