IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
GE Power Conversion India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
PASL Wind Solutions Private Limited – Respondent
R/Petn. Under Arbitration Act No. 131 of 2019 With R/Petn. Under Arbitration Act No. 134 of 2019
Decided on : 03-11-2020
Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 - Order-XXI, Rule 11 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 47 - Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Court Act, 2015 - Sections 2(1)(c), 7 and 10(1) – Evidence – Arbitration agreement – Award – Execution of - It is a settled principle of law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature - The language employed in the statute is determinative factor of legislative intent - The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislation must be found in the words used by the legislature itself.
Facts of the case: It is an energy infrastructure company that manufactures and sells advanced motor drive and control technologies as well as provides technical support and intervention - Respondent PASL Wind Solutions Private Limited is a company incorporated under Act, 1956 with registered office at Ahmedabad - In year 2010, respondent issued three purchase orders to petitioner for supply of six converters - These purchase orders are part of paper book and the details are as under.
Findings of the court: Considering aforesaid as well as taking into consideration ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as judgments of other High Courts, all contentions raised by respondents in Arbitration Petition deserve to be negative - In facts of aforesaid case therefore, this Court finds that award in question has become final as per Curial law and this Court is satisfied that award in question is enforceable and it is hereby held that award shall be deemed to be decree of this Court .
Result: Arbitration Petition No. 131 of 2019 is allowed to the aforesaid extent and Arbitration Petition No. 134 of 2019 is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Arbitration Petition No.131 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner under Form No. 6 (Application for execution of decree under Order-XXI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure) read with Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and read with provisions of Section 2(1)(c), 7 and Section 10(1) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Court Act, 2015. The prayer of the petitioner reads as under:
“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to enforce and execute the Award dated April 18, 2019 rendered in ICC Case No.22924/FS in which the Sole Arbitrator has awarded to the petitioner the principal sums of INR 2,59,76,330.00 and USD 40,000 together with interest on these amounts computed in accordance with the Indian Interest Act, 1978 under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as a decree of the Court, against the Respondent;
(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and direct the Judgment Debtor/Respondent to pay the principal sums of INR 2,59,76,330.00 and USD 40,000 together with interest on these amounts computed in accordance Section 3(1) read with Section 2(b) of the Interest Act, 1978 as awarded by the Sole Arbitrator in full and final satisfaction of the Award as computed in Annexure H to the present petition along with the interest computed from September 13, 2019 till the date of realization. The total amount calculated with principle and interest till September 13, 2019 at 8% per annum is INR 2,68,18,959/- and USD 41,298;”
2. IAAP No.134 of 2019 is between the same parties filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as “Arbitration Act’). The prayer in the Arbitration Petition No.134 of 2019 is as under:
“The applicant therefore pray that pending the execution of the said Final Award and recovery of the amounts payable by the Respondent to the Applicant, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:
(a) By an Order of this Hon'ble Court direct the Respondent to secure the amount awarded to the Applicant under the said Final Award by depositing an amount of INR 25,976,330.00 and USD$ 40,000.00, in this Hon'ble Court or alternatively by furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court and the Applicants;
(b) By an Order of this Hon'ble Court direct the Respondent to disclose on Affidavit, details of all their moveable and immovable properties including those mentioned in paragraph 25 of this Application;
(c) By an Order of this Hon'ble Court, restrain the Respondent from alienating, transferring, selling and/or dealing with any of its assets including the moveable and immovable properties mentioned in paragraph 25 of this Application;
(d) For ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (a) to (c) above;
(e) For ex-parte ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c) above;
(f) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to award costs of these proceedings to favour of the Applicant and against the Respondent; and”
3. Both these applications are in context of a foreign award dated 18.04.2019 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal seated in Zurich, Switzerland.
4. Initially while issuing notice on 25.09.2019, a common oral order was passed by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.J.Desai). The order reads as under:
“COMMON ORAL ORDER
ORDER IN IAAP NO.131 OF 2019
I have heard Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Darshan M. Varandani for the petitioner. The present petition has been filed for enforcement and execution of the award dated 18.4.2019 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, Zurich, Switzerland which suggests that the arbitration proceedings commenced on 3.7.2017. I have also gone through the amended provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the Arbitration Act.
Issue notice to the respondent returnable on 17.10.2019
ORDER IN IAAP NO.134 OF 2019
I have
Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [(1997) 224 ITR 677]
Atlas Exports Industries v. Kotak and Company [1999 7 SCC 61]
Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Limited [(2011) 5 SCC 532]
Bharat Aluminum Company v. Kaiser Aluminum Practical Services Inc. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 552
DOZCO India Pvt. Ltd. v. BOOSAN Infracore Company Ltd. reported in 2011 (6) SCC 179
Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon G mbh [2014 (5) SCC 1]
Fuerst Bay Lawson Limited v. Jindal Exports Ltd. [(2001) 6 SCC 356]
IMAX Corporation v. E-City Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2017 5 SCC 331
Lachoo Mal v. Radhey Shyam [(1971) 1 SCC 619.]
L&T-SCOMI v. MNRDA [(2019) 2 SCC 271]
Murlidhar Aggarwal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 1974 2 SCC 472
Sasan Power Limited v. North American Coal Corporation (India) (P) Limited. [(2016) 10 SCC 813]
Shri Lacchumal v. Radheshyam [(1971) 1 SCC 619]
Sita Ram Gupta v. Punjab National Bank [(2008) 5 SCC 711]
TDM Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. UE Development India (P.) Ltd. [(2008) 14 SCC 271]
Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd.
Sasan Power Limited v. North American Coal Corporation India Limited.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.