Back
2021 Supreme(Raj) 1997
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
M/s Geo Millers And Company Limited - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Application No.89 of 2021 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4988 of 2012
Decided On : 26-11-2021
Mr.Anil Mehta, AAG with Mr.Yashodhar Pandey, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr.S.D. Singh, Adv. & Mr.P.K. Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The court emphasized that the execution of arbitral awards must adhere to the procedural requirements of the CPC, ensuring proper jurisdiction and authority.
Headnote:
Correction - Miscellaneous Application - CPC Section 152, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34, Section 36 - The court interpreted Section 152 of CPC for correcting accidental slips and discussed Sections 34 and 36 of the Arbitration Act regarding enforcement and execution of arbitral awards, influencing the decision to modify the release of funds.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-claimant filed a misc. application for correction of an accidental slip in a previous order, which dismissed the appellant's appeal and vacated an interim order regarding the release of funds held in FDR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the direction to release the FDR to the appellant was inappropriate and modified the order to ensure the funds were transferred to the Executing Court for proper adjudication.
Issues: Whether the court should release the FDR to the appellant or transfer it to the Executing Court for proper execution of the decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the enforcement of the arbitral award must comply with the provisions of the CPC, and the Executing Court is responsible for determining the claims of the parties.
Result: The application filed by the claimant is disposed of with modifications to the previous order regarding the release of the FDR.
ORDER
1. The present misc. application has been filed on behalf of the respondent-claimant under Section 152 CPC seeking correction of accidental slip in para No.26 of the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant-claimant Mr. S.D. Singh submitted that this Court though has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-non claimants and has upheld the order dated 10.09.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer in Civil Misc. Case No. 157/2008 (142/2003) whereby the appeal filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act of 1996') by the appellant, was partly allowed by reducing the interest and the award dated 15.01.2003, was upheld by the Sole Arbitrator, however, this Court while dismissing the appeal in concluding para 26 of the said order dated 08.09.2021, has vacated the interim order dated 21.02.2014 passed by this Court in the appeal and the Registrar (Judicial) has been directed to release the FDR to the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that this Court on 21.02.2014 while disposing of the stay application (S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.3671/2012) directed that principal amount of Rs.97,10,241/- as determined by Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer was to be deposited by the appellant within a period of one month by way of FDR for a period of one year in the name of Deputy Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court Bench Jaipur and disbursement was to be abided by the outcome of the appeal.
4. Learned counsel submitted that the decree-holder is now entitled for the said amount and the FDR, which has been made in the name of Deputy Registrar (Judicial), is required to be returned to the claimant along-with interest which accrued on the FDR till date.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that once the appeal of the State of Rajasthan has been dismissed and stay order has also been vacated, the natural corollary of the dismissal of the appeal, is to make payment to the claimant.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant-claimant Mr.S.D. Singh further submitted that in case, this Court is not inclined to modify the order to give direction to release the payment in favour of the claimant then, direction may be given to transfer the amount which is lying in FDR in the name of Deputy Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court Bench Jaipur and the same may be transferred to the Executing Court.
7. Learned counsel submitted that the Execution Application No.4/2014 is still pending in the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer and as such, necessary exercise may be taken by the Executing Court about entitlement of the money in favour of the decree-holder.
8. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Anil Mehta appearing for the appellant-State submitted that this Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the State, however, direction has rightly been given by this Court to release the FDR in favour of the appellant-State.
9. Learned AAG submitted that any amount which is due to the decree-holder is to be decided and determined by the Executing Court and as such, this Court has rightly passed the order.
10. Learned AAG further submitted that the prayer made by the claimant is like converting this Court as an Executing Court and the same may not be done by this Court.
11. Learned AAG further submitted that as per Section 36 of the Act of 1996, any enforcement of arbitral award is to be made as per provisions contained in CPC in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court.
12. Learned AAG submitted that straightway direction to release any amount in favour of the claimant would be in gross violation of the mandatory requirement of Section 36 of the Act of 1996.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
14. This Court finds that at the time of admission of appeal, this Court on 21.02.2014 had passed the conditional order in the stay application and had directed that
