JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J.( Oral) - By way of instant original miscellaneous petition (OMP), respondents - Judgment debtor has filed objections under section 47 CPC to the execution petition filed by the Decree Holder, seeking therein dismissal of execution proceedings instituted by the Decree Holder.

2. Before adverting to the merits of the application, it may be noticed by way of instant execution petition filed under Order 21, Rule 11 CPC read with Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, Decree Holder has sought execution of award dated 30.5.2009 passed by Shri D.N. Bansal, Sole Arbitrator.

3. It emerges from the record that Shri D.N. Bansal, Chief Engineer (Retd.) and ex-member of the HPSEB was appointed as Sole Arbitrator by the HP Electricity Regulatory Commission vide order dated 25.2.2008 in Petition No. 139 of 2007, titled M/s Sai Engineering Foundation v. HPSEB , for adjudication of dispute between the parties concerning evacuation of power from Titang Mini Hydel Project, Kinnaur. Arbitrator, in the present case, was appointed in terms of conditions contained in Power Purchase Agreement dated 3.10.2000, signed between the parties for the said project. Aforesaid Sole Arbitrator passed award on 30.5.2009.

4. By way of above referred execution petition, Decree Holder has prayed that total amount of Rs. 1,21,41,958/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. upto actual date of payment, be realized by way of sale of attached property of judgment debtor, as well as from its bank accounts. In the aforesaid background, judgment debtor has filed instant objections by way of instant application under section 47 CPC.

5. Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate, while inviting attention of this Court to objections filed by them, contended that award dated 30.5.2009, is not executable as signed copy of award was not supplied to judgment debtor, as such, provisions of Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act would not apply in the instant case. Mr. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate, further contended that objections with regard to signed copy of award not having been supplied to the judgment debtor was also taken by them before HP Electricity Regulatory Commission in petition No. 136/2011, wherein, award in question came to be passed in favour of Decree Holder as also subsequent arbitration proceedings between same parties before arbitral tribunal. Mr. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate, further contended that award sought to be executed in the present proceedings is not executable since time for filing application for setting aside award under Section 34 of the Act has still no elapsed. Apart from above, Mr. Bhogal, contended that HP Electricity Regulatory Commission had appointed Shri D.N. Bansal, retired Chief Engineer, as Sole Arbitrator vide order dated 25.2.2008, for adjudication of dispute between the parties, whereby, he was directed to make award within a period of three months. In the instant case, above named Sole Arbitrator failed to make award within time so stipulated and at no point of time, he sought extension of time, as such, award dated 30.5.2009, is no award in the eyes of law and same is not capable of being executed. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Bhogal, learned Senior Advocate further contended that bare perusal of award passed by learned Sole Arbitrator itself suggests that no amount has been awarded in favour of the Decree Holder, rather, arbitrator has only made recommendations that too without any justification, as such, present execution petition deserves to be dismissed. Mr. Bhogal, further contended that learned arbitrator himself arrived at positive finding against issue No. 2 to the effect that the judgment debtor has not in any manner violated provisions of Article 9 of the PPA. These findings have not been challenged at any time, by the Decree Holder in any forum, as such, same has attained finality against Decree Holder. In the aforesaid backgro