The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the property/money against which the arbitral award is sought to be enforced is situated would have inherent jurisdiction to entertain the execution, and the execution application need not be filed in the court where the application under Section 34 of the Act had been filed.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. Objection of the judgment debtor to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this execution petition of an arbitral award dated 23rd September, 2000 as affirmed/modified by judgment dated 6th September, 2007 of the Apex Court in Civil Appeals No. 4079/2007 and 4080/2007 is for consideration.

2. The decree holder filed the execution petition in this Court stating, inter alia, that out of the awarded amounts, a sum of Rs 4,98,97,205/- had been received on 29th February, 2008 as part payment, without prejudice, by the decree holder; that a sum of Rs 34,22,19,014.06 was still outstanding under the award and seeking execution of the award as a decree by issuance of warrants of attachment of the movable and immovable assets of the judgment debtor lying at 6th floor, 15-17, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi and by attachment of the monies lying in the accounts of the judgment debtor with the State Bank of India, New Delhi Main Branch, New Delhi.

.3. The execution was listed first on 4th July, 2008 when the decree holder was called upon to file an affidavit explaining how this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition. The decree holder filed an affidavit dated 18th July, 2008 stating, inter alia, that as per the agreement between the parties, the venue of arbitration was agreed to be in India and it was further agreed that the courts at Guwahati shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all matters except in relation to the arbitration; that the arbitration proceedings were held and the award announced at Calcutta; that the award was challenged by the judgment debtor in the District Court of Golaghat which court set aside the award; that in appeal the High Court of Guwahati set aside the order of the District Court, Golaghat and partly upheld the award; in further appeal the Supreme court partly modified the order of the High Court of Guwahati and partly upheld the award. It was further stated that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the execution of the award cannot be equated with judgments of Civil Court which are required to be converted into a decree to become executable and the court which passed the judgment alone has jurisdiction to execute or transfer the decree; that since no court intervention is required for an award to be converted into a decree, the normal rule of CPC of the court which passed the judgment alone being entitled to execute the decree or transfer the decree, would not apply and it would be not appropriate to send the decree holder to the District Court of Golaghat simply because the application under Section 34 of the Act was made in that court. It was further stated that since no court had passed the decree, it is up to the decree holder to seek to enforce the award wherefrom the assets of the judgment debtor may be situated; so long as some assets are situated within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have jurisdiction to entertain the execution. Reliance was placed on Brace Transport Corporation v. Orient Middle East Lines Ltd. : 1995 Supp (2) SCC 280 in support of the principle though laid down in relation to the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 that an award can be enforced wherefrom the property may be situated. It was urged that the position would be the same in the present case.

4. During the subsequent hearing on 28th July, 2008, Brace Transport Corporation (supra) was held to be not applicable since in relation to foreign awards, subject matter of that case, the jurisdiction was governed under the proviso to Section 47 of the Act and it was further felt that jurisdiction in relation domestic award is governed by Section 2(e) of the Act. However, it was found that the Apex Court in Merla Ramanna v. Nallaparaju : AIR 1956 SC 87 had held that the court to whose jurisdiction the subject matter of the decree is transferred, acquires inherent jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition, no