SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Soumen Sen, J.
Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
LMJ International Ltd. - Respondent
EC No. 487 of 2013 With EC No. 488 of 2013
Decided On : 04-12-2014

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Tilok Bose, Senior Advocate with Dhruba Ghosh and A. Dey, Advocates
For the Respondents:Surojit Nath Mitra, Senior Advocate with Shyamal Sarkar, Senior Advocate and D.N. Sharma, Advocate

An award is enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if the conditions in Part II of the Act are fulfilled and the objections raised by the judgment debtor do not fall within the grounds for refusal of enforcement specified in Section 48 of the Act.

Headnote:

FOREIGN AWARD - ENFORCEMENT - ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 - SECTION 47 - COURT SATISFIED WITH ENFORCEABILITY - AWARD DEEMED AS DECREE - SECTION 48 - GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL OF ENFORCEMENT - SECTION 48(B) - NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR - WAIVER OF PROCEDURE - MAINTAINABILITY OF EXECUTION APPLICATION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner filed an execution application for enforcement of a foreign award. The judgment debtor objected to the maintainability of the application on various grounds, including lack of prayer for declaration of enforceability, pendency of a civil suit, improper invocation of the arbitration clause, and irregularities in the appointment of the arbitrator.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the execution application was maintainable. It found that the objections raised by the judgment debtor were not substantial and that the award was enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issues: 1. Whether the execution application was maintainable? 2. Whether the award was enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the execution application was maintainable as the decree-holder had produced the original award and a duly certified copy of the agreement for arbitration, as required under Section 47 of the Act. 2. The court found that the objections raised by the judgment debtor did not fall within the grounds for refusal of enforcement specified in Section 48 of the Act. The court held that the judgment debtor had received proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator and that the arbitration procedure was in accordance with the GAFTA Rules.

Final Decision: The court held that the execution application was maintainable and that the award was enforceable. It directed the Chief Manager of the Bank of Baroda, International Branch to create a fixed deposit of Rs. 1.8 crore and forward the original fixed deposit receipt to the Registrar, Original Side of the Court.

JUDGMENT :

Soumen Sen, J.

The execution application was moved on 16th January 2014 for enforcement of a foreign award. At the time of receiving the said application an interim order was passed restraining the judgment debtor from withdrawing any sum from the bank accounts mentioned in paragraph 26 of the affidavit in support of the Tabular Statement, save and except, in the usual course of business. The original award and the certified copy of the agreement were produced in court. The originals were returned to the decree holder and photocopies were taken on record.

2. An objection appears to have been taken at the admission stage as to the maintainability of the said application. Thereafter, series of orders were passed. In fact, by an order dated 18th September 2014, I directed the judgment-debtor to file an affidavit in which the judgment debtor was directed to disclose the particulars of all bank accounts and the amounts lying to the credit of the judgment-debtor in each of such bank accounts with supporting documents mentioned in paragraph 26 of the affidavit in support of the Tabular Statement. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit affirmed by one Ranjit Kumar Das on 29th October 2014 has been filed. The affidavit gives a very bleak picture about financial condition of the judgment-debtor.

3. Mr. Tilak Bose, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, submits that this award is enforceable in law. Mr. Bose has referred to Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and submitted that once the decree-holder has produced the original award and a duly certified copy of the agreement for arbitration, the said award becomes enforceable. The said documents, in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, would be taken as evidence and on production of such evidence the award become enforceable. It is submitted that the preamble of the Act coupled with the provisions mentioned in part II of the said Act would clearly show that on fulfilment of the conditions in Part II legislature wants to ensure due enforcement of foreign awards and the Court should be inclined in favour of enforcement of the award rather than obstructing its enforcement. Mr. Bose has referred to the earlier Act regarding enforcement of foreign award, namely Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 and submitted that the preamble of the present Act would show that the legislature, after reviewing all the existing legislations on the subject, has passed a consolidated statute so that under one umbrella all these matters could be dealt with and decided. It is submitted that the affidavit disclosed in this proceedings would not show that any real challenge is thrown to the enforcement of the foreign award inasmuch as, according to the learned Senior Counsel, no application has been filed by the respondent taking objection to the maintainability of the execution application. It is submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the respondent to deal with the maintainability, but surprisingly the said respondent did not choose to file any objection or affidavit questioning the maintainability. The petitioner also referred to the affidavit filed in this proceedings by the respondent and submitted that it only reveals the impecunious situation of the respondent and it gives a clear impression that the respondent is trying to avoid execution of the award passed against it.

4. Mr. S.N. Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. Shyamal Sarkar, Senior Advocate on behalf of the judgment-debtor, submitted that before any order could be passed in this proceeding, the Court is required to be satisfied that such foreign award is enforceable. The learned Senior Counsel referred to Section 45 of the said Act and submits that Section 47 is dependent upon a satisfaction being recorded by the Court that such award is enforceable. Section 48 lays down the condition for enforcement of the foreign award and it is only on a decision being arrived




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top