Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1709
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J
THE AMRAVATI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AMRAVATI THR. ITS C.E.O. – Appellant
Versus
M/S PRONETSOFT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 105 KALINGA ARCADE NAGPUR – Respondent
WP/2186/2024
Shri V.A. Kothale, Advocate for petitioner through V.C. Shri Y.B. Sharma, Advocate for respondent.
The limitation period for executing an arbitration award is 12 years from the date of the award, not from subsequent judgments.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Execution of arbitration award - Limitation period for execution of an arbitration award is 12 years from the date of the award, and not from the date of any subsequent judgment. (Paras 4, 10, 15)
(B) Civil Procedure Code - Section 50 - The authenticity of the decree holder's representative must be established, especially when execution is sought after the limitation period. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a body corporate, challenged the execution of an arbitration award obtained by the respondent for recovery of Rs.8,19,900/- with interest, arguing that the execution was beyond the limitation period.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the execution proceedings were initiated beyond the limitation period and quashed the trial court's orders.
Issues: The main issues were the starting point of limitation for execution and the authenticity of the decree holder's representative.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the limitation for execution starts from the date of the arbitration award, and the trial court erred in calculating it from a subsequent judgment.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; execution proceedings dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
2] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 22.08.2023 passed below Exh. 7 and order dated 25.01.2024 passed below Exh. 20 in Arbitration Regular Darkhast No.160/2023 by learned 8th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, the present petition is filed.
3. The facts of the case in brief are as under:-
The petitioner is body corporate, registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and respondent obtained arbitration award against petitioner Bank on 18.01.2010 for making recovery of Rs.8,19,900/- along with 12% interest per annum from 18.01.2010 and filed execution proceeding arising out of arbitration award vide Arbitration Regular Darkhast No. 160/2023 before learned 8th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati.
4. The Petitioner [J.D.] had filed objection regarding tenability vide Exh. 7, whereby issue of authenticity of Director of respondent Company as per latest position shown by company registrar was demanded and second objection regarding limitation of 12 years for execution of award was raised by considering starting point of limitation of 12 years started from 18.05.2010 and expired on 18.01.2022. The respondent [D.H.] replied to the objection contending that Execution proceeding is under limitation period. Accordingly, the parties were heard and learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati, dismissed the objection raised by petitioner [JD] vide Exh. 7 as per order dated 22.08.2023.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner got knowledge about filing of R.D. No. 274/2010 by the respondent which came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 21.03.2016 and hence, the petitioner had filed application below Exh. 20 regarding deciding non-tenability of Second Execution proceeding which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 25.01.2024. The execution proceeding initiated by the respondent is unsustainable in the eyes of law, hence, order passed below Exh. 7 and Exh. 20 are liable to be quashed and set aside. The aforesaid orders are subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.
6. Learned Counsel for petitioner contended that The Trial Court ought to have considered the objection Exh.7 on the ground of limitation. So order passed vide Annexure- P-3 on 22.08.2023 is misconceived because Trial Court failed to consider that respondent is not entitled to count period of limitation after dismissal of Misc. Civil Application No. 203/2011 on 10.11.2017 by which arbitration award obtained by respondent on 18.01.2010 is maintained as it is.
7. It is also contended that as regards objection regarding authentic status of respondent [D.H.] applicant has demanded authority of D.H. regarding his status as representative of company from Company Registrar because of award is being executed after 12 years of limitation. So petitioner [J.D.] has sought clarification about lawfulness of status of decree holders. So considering provisions of Section 50 of Civil Procedure Code, trial court ought to have accepted objection No.1. However finding is given in Para No.5 that at the relevant point of time Milind Shankarrao Chavan was authorized person of decree holder company, hence erroneous finding is given that petitioner has no right to challenge the status of Executor on behalf of decree holder.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following citations:-
i) Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. and anr. V/s. Union of India and ors. [(2020) 17 SCC 324]
ii) Damodar Bhagwant Pande, since deceased, by legal representatives and ors. V/s. Narayan Bhagwant Pande, since deceased, by legal heirs and ors. [(1999) 1 Mh.L.J. 187]
iii) Pralhad S/o. Suryabhan Sapkal V/s. Gajanan S/o. Hari Marodkar [Judgment of this Court in WP 565/2024, d/d on 03/02/2025]
9. Learned Counsel for respondent supported the order passed by the learned District Judge and submitted that the judgement passed in M.C.A. No.
