SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Mad) 2002

R.SUBRAMANIAN
Kamarajar Port Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ennore Tank Terminal Private Limited – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Parthasarathy, SC and Krishna Ravindran
For the Respondents:Vijay Narayanan, Advocate General assisted by K. Gowtham Kumar

Judgement Key Points
  • The Execution Petition (EP No. 124 of 2018) seeks enforcement of the arbitral award dated 28.09.2017, directing the judgment debtor to approve DRP 2014, allot 330 meters for jetty expansion, 300 sq.m. for truck drivers' resting area, and 3.75 acres for storage within six weeks. [21001342660001][21001342660002]
  • The applicant challenges the Master's order dated 08.02.2019 under Order 14 Rule 12 of Original Side Rules, which overruled objections to execution. [21001342660001]
  • Respondent contests maintainability of the appeal, citing Sections 5 and 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arguing the Act is a self-contained code barring appeals not specified therein. [21001342660004] (!) [21001342660005][21001342660006] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Section 37 limits appeals to specific orders (e.g., under Sections 8, 9, 34, 16, 17) and states "from no others," with no second appeal under sub-section (3). [21001342660006] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Section 50 (for foreign awards) limits appeals and bars second appeals, emphasizing minimal judicial intervention. [21001342660007] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Argument for applicant: Award under Section 36 is enforceable as a decree under CPC; execution proceedings terminate arbitration under Section 32 and follow CPC fully, including appeals. [21001342660022] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [21001342660024][21001342660032] (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Master's role in Original Side executions is as Court delegate; Order 14 Rule 12 appeal is review-like, not barred by Section 37. [21001342660025][21001342660049]
  • Section 36 deems award enforceable under CPC "in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court"; execution outside Arbitration Act post-award. [21001342660032] (!) (!) (!) (!) [21001342660034][21001342660042]
  • Difference from Section 49 (foreign awards deemed decree of specific court) noted; local awards executable anywhere under CPC without transfer. [21001342660035] (!) (!) [21001342660039]
  • Section 5 limits judicial intervention to Act's provisions, but execution under CPC invokes CPC remedies (appeals/revisions). [21001342660037][21001342660048]
  • Court holds appeal maintainable under Order 14 Rule 12 as execution governed by CPC per Section 36; Section 37 bar inapplicable to execution orders. [21001342660050]
  • Amendment introducing non-obstante clause in Section 37(1) noted but not ruled upon, as execution pre-dates and falls under CPC. [21001342660051] (!) [21001342660052]
  • Objection to maintainability overruled; appeal proceeds. [21001342660053]

ORDER :

R. Subramanian, J.

1. The applicant in Application No. 2292 of 2019 challenges the order of the learned Master dated 08.02.2019 made in EP No. 124 of 2018, in and by which, the learned Master had directed the respondent/applicant herein to approve DRP 2014, to allot 330 meters expansion of the existing jetty (MLT-1), to allot an area of 300 square meters to setup truck drivers resting area and allot 3.75 acres of land to install additional storage facility to the petitioner within a period of six weeks. The Execution Petition in EP No. 124 of 2018 was laid by the respondent herein seeking execution of the award of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 28.09.2017.

2. The Execution Petition was resisted by the judgment debtor/applicant herein on various grounds. The above order came to be passed in the Execution Petition over ruling the objections of the judgment debtor/applicant herein. Aggrieved, the applicant has come forward with this application seeking to set aside the order of the learned Master under Order 14 Rule 12 of the Original Side Rules.

3. When the above applications were taken up for hearing Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent/decree ho

                      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                      1
                      2
                      3
                      4
                      5
                      6
                      7
                      8
                      9
                      10
                      11
                      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                      supreme today icon
                      logo-black

                      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

                      qr

                      Scan Me!

                      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                      whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
                      whatsapp-icon Back to top