The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Executing Court must comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure when dealing with execution proceedings, including ascertaining the amount due under the decree and limiting the attachment to the recoverable amount.

ORDER :

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

By way of this revision petition, the Chief Engineer, Military Engineering Service, Shillong Zone and the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, Shillong Division, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners'/'the judgment-debtors'), have questioned the legality of proceedings in (ARB) Execution Case No.1 (T) of 2016 by the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong for execution of an arbitral award made in favour of the non-petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as 'the decree-holders').

2. The relevant background aspects of the matter could be noticed as follows: Under a contract dated 28.09.2006 between the parties, the non-petitioners herein were to render periodical services to OTM ACCN at Happy Valley under the Garrison Engineer, Shillong. The disputes having arisen, matter was referred to arbitration; and ultimately, the sole arbitrator made an award dated 17.12.2015 in favour of the non-petitioners in the following terms:-

".....Thus the Claimant's total due comes to (Rs.3,41,092.35p + Rs.75000) = Rs.4,16,092.35p/-. The Respondents shall pay the said due amount of Rs.4,16,092.35p/- to the Claimant within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the award with interest @10% per annum from the date of completion of work i.e., 11-06-2007 till realization of the entire due amount failing which the amount shall carry interest @15% per annum from the expiry of three months till realization of the whole amount."

3. The arbitrator further held the non-petitioners entitled to the cost of proceedings quantified at Rs.50,000/-.

4. It appears that on 11.03.2016, the present petitioners made an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ['the Act of 1996'] seeking rectification of the award but, on 01.04.2016, the learned Arbitrator rejected the said application while observing that the same was barred by time and was misconceived too, because the petitioners were seeking review of the award on merits, which was not permissible in law.

5. It is noticed that on 01.04.2016 itself, the present non-petitioners made an application seeking execution of the award aforesaid against 'Union of India represented by Chief Engineer, Military Engineering Service, Shillong Zone, Spread Eagle Falls, Shillong' by way of "attachment of the moveable properties and assets including vehicles upto the satisfaction of the decreetal amount that may be found in the office of the Judgment Debtor and also by attachment of bank accounts of the Judgment Debtor with the State Bank of India, Shillong Branch, Shillong." On the application so filed, the learned Executing Court recorded the following order on 01.04.2016:-

"01.04.2016 Record put up.

M/s Krishna Enterprise has filed the execution of the award dated 17.12.2015 which has been passed in Arbitration proceeding No.2/2014 passed by the sole arbitrator for satisfaction of the decreetal amount that may be found in the office of the Judgment Debtor which is Union of India represented by Chief Engineer, Shillong Zone, Spread Eagle Falls. Let the decree holder take steps for the execution to be taken up by the bailiff of the Court.

Fix 17.05.2016 for report on the execution."

6. Thereafter, on 06.04.2016, without any other order and without any other proceeding, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong issued the warrant of attachment to the Bailiff of the Court under Rule 30 Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure ['CPC'] while stating as under:-

"Whereas the Judgment Debtors has been ordered under Award/Decree of the Arbitrator for necessary Execution of the Award/Decree passed on 17.12.2015 in Arbitration proceeding No.2/2014 to pay to the Decree Holder the sum of Rs.10,71,847.79 as noted in the margin and WHEREAS the said amount of Rs.10,71,847.79 has not be