Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Sadeesh Premananth - Appellant
Versus
Kamal Kanojia - Respondent
C.R.P. 215 of 2022 & CM APPL. 55812 of 2022
Decided On : 12-10-2023
CPC - Execution of Arbitration Award - Section 47 - 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - 34 of the Act - 115 of the CPC - 227 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a judgment debtor, sought to set aside the order dismissing his objections under Section 47 of the CPC in an execution petition related to an arbitration award. The petitioner argued that he was not personally liable under the award and that the executing court had erred in its decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had already raised similar objections in a previous petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and re-agitating the same grounds under the CPC would amount to an abuse of process of law. The court held that the executing court cannot go behind the decree unless it is a nullity, and the objections raised did not render the decree non-est and inexecutable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the executing court erred in dismissing the petitioner's objections under Section 47 of the CPC, and whether the petitioner's re-agitation of objections already dismissed under Section 34 of the Act constituted an abuse of process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that the executing court cannot go behind the decree unless it is a nullity, and re-agitating objections already dismissed in a previous petition would amount to an abuse of process of law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments and upholding the impugned order dismissing the objections under Section 47 of the CPC.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
1. The instant revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC"), has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"I. call for the records pertaining to EX. No. 9167/2016 pending in the Court of Sh. Munish Markan, Ld. Additional District Judge-02, South East, District Court, Saket, New Delhi and set aside the Final Order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure P-1) dismissing the Objections under Section 47 of CPC filed by the Petitioner/JD-2 in EX. No. 9167/2016;
II. award costs of the present Petition in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent; and
III. grant such further or other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."
2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition have been reproduced hereunder:
a) The petitioner is the judgment debtor no. 2/respondent/objector before the learned Executing Court in execution petition bearing EX no. 9167/2016. The petitioner herein is also the managing director of the judgment debtor no. 1, i.e., M/s Kriti Metform Ltd. The respondent herein is the decree holder before the learned Court below.
b) A petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "the Act"), was filed by the decree holder against the two judgment debtors and the matter was referred to the Delhi High Court mediation Centre and a Sole Arbitrator was appointed, who passed the Arbitral Award dated 9th May 2015. By way of the said Award, the learned Arbitrator had allowed the claim of the decree holder/claimant against the `respondent'.
c) In the Award, the memo of parties mentioned two respondent/both judgment debtors and the present petitioner/judgment debtor no. 2 was the respondent no. 2. Simultaneously, the counter claim of the `respondent' was rejected. The said Award was further challenged under Section 34 of the Act before the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh and the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 6th August 2016, in Arbitration Case no. 1/2016. The first appeal filed by the judgment debtors vide case bearing FAFO no. 2761/2016, before the High Court of Allahabad was dismissed in default and the restoration therein, is stated to be pending.
d) The respondent herein filed EX no. 9167/2016, on 15th January 2016, for execution of Award dated 9th October 2015, against M/s Kriti Metform Ltd. (judgment debtor no. 1) and the present petitioner (judgment debtor no. 2). The respondent in its execution petition sought attachment of the personal assets of the petitioner.
e) On 11th March 2016, the petitioner filed objections dated 10th March 2016, under Section 47 of the CPC stating that the execution petition was liable to be dismissed against the petitioner as he is not personally liable to pay any money to the decree holder under the Award.
f) Meanwhile, vide order dated 28th September 2019, the learned ADJ-02 (South East), Saket, Delhi, ordered warrants of attachment in EX no. 9167/2016, against the personal assets of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed CM (M) no. 1490/2019, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court and the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 16th October 2019. The said dismissal order of this Court was further challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) no. 25236/2019, and the Hon'ble Court disposed of the said SLP vide order dated 22th October 2019, observing that the Executing Court shall deal with the objections of the petitioner under Section 47 of the CPC independently and uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court in its order dated 16th October 2019.
g) In the interim, the warrant of attachment issued by the learned Executing Court was issued and the bailiff was appointed on 23rd October 2019. The petitioner filed a Demand Draft for Rs. 59,50,796/- in favour of the respondent, stating that the same
The executing court cannot go behind the decree unless it is a nullity, and re-agitating objections already dismissed in a previous petition would amount to an abuse of process of law.
The court emphasized the limited grounds on which a decree is unexecutable and highlighted that the right of the Decree Holder to obtain relief is determined in accordance with the terms of the decre....
Execution of foreign decree requires adherence to procedural norms; revisiting established judgments without new evidence undermines legal certainty.
The executing court cannot go behind the decree and must execute it as it is, without considering new objections raised in a revision that were not part of the original application.
An executing court is limited to enforcing a decree as it stands; it cannot engage in fact-finding beyond the explicit terms of the decree, particularly in execution of vague prohibitory orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
