IMPORTANT POINT
The execution of arbitral awards must adhere to procedural requirements, ensuring proper notice and compliance with legal standards.

ORDER :

Heard Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Chit Fund Company.

2. Perusal of the record would reveal that 2nd respondent is the subscriber of the subject chit with 1st respondent. He has participated in the auction on 31.10.2017 and become successful bidder. Respondents 3 to 7 stood as guarantors who are jointly and severally liable to pay the chit amount, if 2nd respondent fails to pay the same. According to the 1st respondent, 2nd respondent being the subscriber of the chit, failed to pay the said amount. Therefore, they have filed an application vide Arb.No.386 of 2021 under Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982. The Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits, passed an Award dated 24.08.2023 fixing liability on the respondents 2 to 7 and the petitioner jointly and severally for recovery of an amount of Rs.15,49,494/- with interest at 18% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.11,98,505/-. According to the 1st respondent, they have not paid the said amount. Therefore, it has filed execution petition vide E.P.No.71 of 2024. Vide order dated 20.04.2024, the Executing Court/learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar issued Form No.8 warrant of attachment of movable property.

3. Challenging the same, the petitioner/J.Dr. has filed present revision on the following three grounds, 1) Along with the said E.P., 1st respondent failed to file certified copy of the certificate issued by Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits. 2) The said award was passed without putting the petitioner on notice. 3) The Executing Court issued Form No.8 warrant of attachment against all the J.Drs. for recovery of an amount of Rs.16,51,720/- each which is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Contract Act.

4. It is further submitted that during pendency of the present CRP, 1st respondent has recovered the amount of Rs.37,50,000/- from J.Drs. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, 2nd respondent has paid an amount of Rs.22 lakhs before filing of the EP. Without considering the said aspects, Executing Court has issued the impugned warrant of attachment.

5. According to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, executing Court issued warrant of attachment in Form No.8 in accordance with law.

6. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that 2nd respondent is subscriber, respondents 2 to 7 and the petitioner are the guarantors. 1st respondent has filed an application under Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act, 1994 before the Chit Arbitrator/the Deputy Registrar of Chits who in turn passed an award dated 24.08.2023. There is no challenge to the said award. 1st respondent has filed E.P. No.71 of 2024 before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar for execution of the said award and for recovery of an amount of Rs.16,51,714/- from J.Dr.Nos.1 to 7 including the petitioner herein. On filing of such application, learned executing Court issued impugned warrant of attachment for recovery of an amount of Rs.16,51,714/- each from the petitioner and other J.Drs.

7. It is relevant to note that this Court vide order dated 03.05.2024 in CRP No.1237 of 2024 considered the said aspects and set aside the impugned order dated 02.01.2024 in E.P.No.13 of 2022 in Arb.No.71 of 2021 and remanded the matter back to the executing Court and the relevant paragraphs of the said order are as follows:-

“7. It is relevant to note that Section - 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with ‘enforcement of award’ and the same is relevant for the purpose of considering the lis in the present revisions and it is extracted below:

“Section 36:-Enforcement. —Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral Award under section 34 has expired, or such application having been made, it has been refused, the award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Co