ORDER :

1. The present execution petition preferred under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Act, seeks the issuance of appropriate directions for execution of the award dated 26 May 2017 as a decree of this Court. The petitioner further seeks the grant of consequential release of Rs. 23,46,451/- along with interest on the aforesaid amount with effect from 01 July 2016 till 26 May 2017 together with interest on the principal sum for the period post award till the date of realisation. Additionally, it seeks the recovery of costs of arbitration which have been calculated at Rs. 33,44,717.12/-.

2. For the purposes of consideration of the issues which arise, it would be apposite to notice the following essential facts. The petitioner decree holder and the respondent judgment debtor are stated to have entered into a Hotel Management Agreement dated 10 March 2010. Pursuant to disputes arising between the parties, the petitioner invoked arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a sole arbitrator was appointed by this Court. On conclusion of proceedings, an award came to be rendered on 26 May 2017.

3. A petition under Section 34 of the Act numbered as OMP (COMM.) 389/2017 came to be preferred by the respondent before this Court and which remains pending as on date. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Act seeking various interim reliefs against the respondent. On 09 July 2018 while dealing with the said application, a learned Judge of the Court passed the following order: -

“1. Pursuant to the last order dated 18.04.2019 passed by me, Mr. Girish Chandra Agarwal, Managing Director of the respondent company, is present in court. On 18.04.2019, I had issued notice to Mr. Girish Chandra Agarwal to show cause as to why contempt proceedings ought not to be initiated against him. This notice was issued in the background of the proceedings held on 28.11.2018 whereat an undertaking was furnished on behalf of the respondent company that a sum of Rs.2,34,60,541/- would be deposited with this Court within a period of three weeks.

2. To be noted, this order was carried in appeal by the respondent company. The Division Bench, while sustaining the direction to deposit vide order dated 23.1.2019 passed in FAO(COMM) No.18/2019, gave time to the respondent company till 01.03.2019 for making the deposit. Furthermore, the Division Bench had also directed the respondent company to file an affidavit of undertaking in that behalf.

3. Concededly, pursuant to the order of the Division Bench dated 23.01.2019, an affidavit dated 24.01.2019 was filed by Mr. Girish Chandra Agarwal wherein he, inter alia, undertook to deposit the amount as directed by the court.

3.1. Admittedly, the amount has not been deposited.

4. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent company, has placed before me a copy of the reply (which is accompanied with an affidavit dated 06.07.2019) in response to the notice issued by me on 08.04.2019.

4.1 The reply, Mr. Nandrajog, says was filed with the Registry of this court on 08.07.2019 vide Diary No.E-584781/2019.

5. Based on the reply, Mr. Nandrajog says that the efforts were made by the respondent company to garner funds in order to comply with the undertaking given to this court.

6. I have perused the reply with some care. The perusal of the reply shows that apart from the bald averment made in paragraph 6 of the reply that due to "business exigency", the respondent was unable to discharge its obligations, nothing else has been stated.

6.1 Mr. Nandrajog's submission that efforts made to sell immovable properties did not bear fruit as there were no buyers due to a general slump in the market, is an aspect which does not find any mention in the reply.

7. The respondent has not made any averment which would show that advertisements for sale of immovable properties were issued or real estate brokers were contac