IMPORTANT POINT
Execution of arbitral awards must occur in the court where the original arbitration application was filed, as per Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

ORDER:

ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J.

Mr. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned counsel for the proposed respondent in C.R.P.No.3603 of 2023.

2. These Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed against the order dated 14.11.2023 in C.E.P.Nos.13 and 14 of 2023 passed by the Commercial Court.

3. Brief facts:

For the facility of reference, facts from C.R.P.No.3603 of 2023 are being referred to.

3.1. The parties had entered into an agreement dated 27.03.2009 which contained an arbitration clause. The dispute arose between the parties and a former Judge of Bombay High Court was appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The arbitral tribunal conducted the proceedings in Bombay and passed an award on 02.01.2023 against the respondent/judgment debtor.

3.2. The respondent filed the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1996 Act’) to set aside the award dated 02.01.2023, which is pending before the District Court at Bombay.

3.3. The petitioner filed an execution petition seeking execution of the award before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The City Civil Court, Hyderabad has passed the order dated 08.05.2023 by which the immovable property of the respondent was attached. The respondent challenged the aforesaid order in a petition, namely C.R.P.No.1820 of 2023, wherein the learned Single Judge by order dated 31.07.2023 dismissed the aforesaid civil revision petition. The respondent raised the objection in the execution proceeding on the strength of the Division Bench decision of this Court in India Media Services Private Limited vs. SBPL Infrastructure Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 3422. The Commercial Court dismissed the execution petition on the ground that the Court at Hyderabad lacks jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner/decree holder.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commercial Court grossly erred in placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in India Media Services Private Limited (supra), which does not apply to the facts of the case. It is also contended that in the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench of this Court had distinguished the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Sundaram Finance Limited vs. Abdul Samad, (2018) 3 SCC 622 and had noted that no application was filed under Section 9 and/or under Section 34 of the 1996 Act and the Supreme Court in Sundaram Finance Limited (supra) had held that the award passed by the arbitrator can be enforced anywhere in the country. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 42 of the 1996 Act is applicable at the stage prior to Section 32 of the 1996 Act and nowhere in the judgment in India Media Services Private Limited (supra), the scope and impact of Section 32 of the 1996 Act is discussed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Cheran Properties Limited vs. Kasturi and Sons Limited, (2018) 16 SCC 413. It is therefore contended that the Court in Hyderabad has jurisdiction to enforce the award.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had filed the present petitions by suppressing the material facts as the factum of filing an execution petition before the District Court at Kakinada in the State of Andhra Pradesh seeking attachment of properties of respondent has not been disclosed. It is contended that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and therefore, no relief can be granted to it. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in Amar Singh vs. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 69 for the proposition that non-disclosure of facts and litigants who come with unclean ha