IMPORTANT POINT
i) Execution proceeding - Sale of Property - After the claimed amount was met out, decree holder has no right to make any further claim.
ii) Award - Once arbitrator had not created the rights for the first time, the Arbitral award does not require registration and is enforceable in law.
iii) Interest Sale of Property - Procedural delay - After filing the execution application decree holder would not be entitled to any interest for delay caused in executing the award/decree.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34, 36 - Award of Arbitrator - Objections -

S.N. AGGARWAL, J.

1. This order will dispose of other two appeals also registered at FAO No.1849 of 2005 and FAO No.1787 of 2005 as common questions of law and facts are involved. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from FAO No.1786 of 2005.

2. M/s Compaux Enterprises (respondent N.2) had taken three different loans from M/s Vardhman Properties and Investment Limited, Chandigarh (respondent No.1) for purchase of plant and machinery etc. S.K.Jain, appellant and Rachna Ram, respondent No.3 (now deceased) were the guarantors. There was a dispute between the parties. As per arbitration clause in the agreement, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator (Shri Lalit Mohan Suri, Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh) who vide his three separate awards dated 25.10.1997 awarded the following amounts:-

Principal amount. Interest @ 24% from

13.3.1996 to 13.2.1997.

1.Rs.17,24,426/- Rs.3,83,248/-

2.Rs.22,97,572/- Rs.5,10,627/-

3.Rs.1,79,493/- Rs.39,892/-

3. These amounts were found payable as on 24.2.1997 and further interest at the rate of 24% per annum was also awarded.

4. The said awards were challenged by N.K.Jain, proprietor of M/s Compaux Enterprises and by S.K.Jain (present appellant) by filing three separate objection petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be called Act of 1996) on 28.1.1998. The same were dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh on 14.9.2001 (Annexure P-2). Further appeals filed in the Hon’ble High Court (FAO No.4270 of 2001, FAO No.166 of 2002 and FAO No.167 of 2002) were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.2.2003 by which interest was reduced from 24% per annum to 7.5% per annum.

5. It was submitted at the time of arguments that Petitions for F.A. O. No.1786 of 2005. 3 Special Leave to Appeal were also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and,therefore, the awards dated 25.10.1997 had become final.

6. During the pendency of the objection petitions, respondent No.1 filed applications for permission to file execution applications with regard to the amounts which were not disputed by the appellant. The version of respondent No.1 was that in the objection petitions the dispute was only with regard to the rate of interest which was claimed by respondent No.1 at the rate of 24% per annum. After hearing both the parties, the stay order against the execution of the awards was withdrawn and respondent No.1 was permitted on 12.2.2000 to file execution applications with regard to admitted amounts.

7. Accordingly, on 14.2.2000 respondent No.1 filed execution applications of the awards dated 25.10.1997 by claiming interest at the admitted rate of interest @ 7.5%. The executions applications proceeded at the snail speed. The judgment debtors including the appellant filed various applications to stall the execution proceedings. In other words, the execution applications for the enforcement of the awards dated 25.10.1997 to the extent of undisputed amounts remained at initial stage till 14.9.2001 when the objection petitions filed by the judgment debtors under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 were dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. It was only on 2.2.2002 that an application under Order 21 Rule 66 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by respondent No.1 in which the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were served on 4.5.2002. House No.279-P, NAC, Shivalik Enclave, Mani Majra, UT Chandigarh owned by the appellant was the mortgaged property against these loans. It was ordered to be sold through Munadi which was to be effected on 16.7.2002. The auction was fixed for 5.8.2002. Shri S.P.Goyal, Advocate was the Court Auctioneer. He reported that no bidder was available.

8. Accordingly, respondent No.1 (decree holder) filed an application for permission to purchase the property in auction proceedings. Rs.50 lacs were fixed to be the reserve price. Auction took place on 27.5.2003 i.e. even aft