Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
M/s. Samson Maritime Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Kunal Trivedi - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Hardy Exploration & Production (India) Inc., Chennai & Others - Respondent
Application Nos. 3047 to 3050 of 2018 in EP Nos. 11 & 12 of 2017
Decided on : 11-03-2019
For the Appellant :P. Giridharan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Vinod Kumar, P.J. Bency Switesingh Dhas, M/s. King & Patridge, Advocates.
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XIV Rule 8 - Order 21 Rule 12 and 46A, 41 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Seeking to set aside the awards - Funds lying in Site Restoration fund - (i) To prohibit 2nd Bank, from parting with the funds lying in Site Restoration fund Deposits (14 accounts) as described in the schedule hereto, of which the Judgment Debtor is the sole account holder and further direct the 2nd Bank to deposit the funds lying in the accounts to the credit of the present execution petition hereto under Order 21 Rule 12 and 46 A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - (ii) To detain authorised signatory of the judgment debtor in Civil prison as mandated under Order 21 Rule 41(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for concealing the details of the bank accounts in the letter and violating the order - (iii) To detain the authorized signatory of the judgment debtor in Civil prison as mandated under Order 21 Rule 41(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for concealing the details of the bank accounts in the letter and violating the order – Held, claim of the judgment debtor that it had no disposing power over the amounts lying in the Site Restoration Fund accounts and therefore it is not under an obligation to disclose the details of the said accounts cannot be, in my opinion, accepted as a reasonable explanation for not complying with the directions of this Court - Judgment debtor should have made an open and truthful disclosure. If only the judgment debtor had made a truthful disclosure along with the rider that these amounts lying in the Site Restoration funds cannot be used for any other purpose the order could be said to have been complied with - Therefore, it can be said that judgment debtor had made a truthful disclosure - Judgment debtor had in fact disobeyed order of this Court, it is liable to be committed to Civil Prison under Order 21 Rule 41 Sub Rule 3. Since the judgment debtor is a Company, its Principal Officer, has to be detained, as per the provision of code of Civil Procedure - Applications is allowed
(Prayer: Applications are filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order 21 Rule 12 and 46A, 41(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to
(i) To prohibit the 2nd Garnishee Bank, from parting with the funds lying in Site Restoration fund Deposits (14 accounts) bearing CIF No.85024991365, as described in the schedule hereto, of which the Judgment Debtor is the sole account holder and further direct the 2nd Garnishee Bank to deposit the funds lying in the accounts to the credit of the present execution petition hereto under Order 21 Rule 12 and 46 A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (in A.No.3047/2018)
(ii) To detain the authorised signatory of the judgment debtor Mr.Sankalp Mitra in Civil prison as mandated under Order 21 Rule 41(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for concealing the details of the bank accounts in the letter dated 06.05.2016 and violating the order dated 27.04.2016. (in A.No.3048/2018)
(iii) To detain the authorized signatory of the judgment debtor Mr.Sankalp Mitra in Civil prison as mandated under Order 21 Rule 41(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for concealing the details of the bank accounts in the letter dated 06.05.2016 and violating the order dated 27.04.2016. (in A.No.3049/2018)
(iv) To prohibit the 2nd Garnishee Bank, from parting with the funds lying in Site Restoration fund Deposits (14 accounts) bearing CIF No.85024991365, as described in the schedule hereto, of which the Judgment Debtor is the sole account holder and further direct the 2nd Garnishee Bank to deposit the funds lying in the accounts to the credit of the present execution petition hereto under Order 21 Rule 12 and 46 A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (in A.No.3050/2018))
1. The Application Nos.3047 to 3050 of 2018 in EP Nos.11 and 12 of 2017, seeking the following reliefs:
(i) To prohibit the 2nd Garnishee Bank, from parting with the funds lying in Site Restoration fund Deposits (14 accounts) bearing CIF No.85024991365, as described in the schedule hereto, of which the Judgment Debtor is the sole account holder and further direct the 2nd Garnishee Bank to deposit the funds lying in the accounts to the credit of the present execution petition hereto under Order 21 Rule 12 and 46 A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
(ii) To detain the authorized signatory of the judgment debtor Mr.Sankalp Mitra in Civil prison as mandated under Order 21 Rule 41(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for concealing the details of the bank accounts in the letter dated 06.05.2016 and violating the order dated 27.04.2016.
(iii) To detain the authorized signatory of the judgment debtor Mr.Sankalp Mitra in Civil prison as mandated under Order 21 Rule 41(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for concealing the details of the bank accounts in the letter dated 06.05.2016 and violating the order dated 27.04.2016.
(iv) To prohibit the 2nd Garnishee Bank, from parting with the funds lying in Site Restoration fund Deposits (14 accounts) bearing CIF No.85024991365, as described in the schedule hereto, of which the Judgment Debtor is the sole account holder and further direct the 2nd Garnishee Bank to deposit the funds lying in the accounts to the credit of the present execution petition hereto under Order 21 Rule 12 and 46 A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. These applications arise in Execution proceedings. The applicant/decree holder had succeeded in obtaining awards for payment of money against the respondent in arbitration proceedings. The awards came to be passed on 25.08.2015 and additional awards were passed on 25.10.2015. It is not in dispute that applications filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the awards were also dismissed. Subsequent there too, the present Execution Proceedings were launched by the applicant/decree holder. Pending the Execution proceedings the applicant/ decree holder filed Application Nos.8191 to 8193 of 2015
