Arun REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION CHAMBER SUMMONS (L) NO. 246 OF 2018 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 422 OF 2018 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 374 OF 2004 DSL Enterprises Private Limited …Claimant ~ versus ~

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution …Respondent/ Company Ltd. Applicant Mr Chirag Mody, with Mr Rahul Sinha i/b Lex Global Legal Consultant for the Applicant-Respondent.

Mr RA Dada, Senior Advocate, with Mr Mukul Taly and Ms S Sridhar, i/b Mohamedbhai & Company, for the Claimant.

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 13th March 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. The Chamber Summon s is filed by th e Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Compan y Limited (“MSEDCL”), the unsuccessful respondent to an arbitral award . These are the prayers in the Chamber Summons:

(a) That upon th e Applic ant depos iti ng a sum of Rs.46,89,16,396/- this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the arbitration award dated 18th June 2004 stands fully satisfied and the Applicant stands discharged therefrom;

(b) That thi s Hon’b le C our t be p lea sed to raise attachment of Applicant’s bank account being Schedule as attached in the Warrant o f attachment dated February 22, 2018 vide warrant of attachment (Exhibit “A” hereto);

(c) That pending the hearing an d fina l dispos al of the Chamber Summons Applicant may b e allowe d to deposit an amount of Rs.46,89,16,396/- through Demand Draf t no 977411 dated 6th February 201 8 (Ban k of Maharashtra) in satisfaction o f th e awa rd dated 18th June 200 4 and attachment of Applic ant’s Bank account being 0239256010710, Canara Bank , Tamarin d Lan e bran ch be raised;

2. The Chamber Summons wa s firs t move d o n 24 th February 2018. As I was unavailabl e tha t da y, MSEDC L mov ed befo re AK Menon J. It cited ‘grave urgency’, and actually applie d afte r court hours, saying that the attachmen t in execution of its bank accounts needed to be raised immediately. Given the time when it was moved, Menon J directed it be place d befor e t he regu lar Bench on 26th February 2018. On that day , 26th Februar y 2018 , at th e reque st of Mr Dada for the decree holder, DSL Enterprises Pvt Ltd (“DSL”), it was stood over by a day. On 27th February 2018 , I passe d a n ad-

interim order. I will return to the details of this order presently, but in sum, since MSEDCL (a) deposited i n Cou rt ( i) an amou nt of Rs.46,89,16,396 admittedly du e to DS L; a nd (ii ) an am ount of Rs.98,54,06,315 claimed by DSL; and (b) made a stateme nt in regard to a potential deduction of tax at source, I ordered the raising of the attachment of MSEDCL’s bank accounts.

3. The parties then completed their filings, to the stage of a sur- rejoinder. I have now heard M r Mod y for MSEDCL and Mr Dada for DSL at some length. In my view, and for the reasons tha t follow, this entire application is no t jus t untenabl e i n law an d unsupported by facts; it is purely dilatory, certainly vexatious and has resulted in a quite unforgivable waste of judicial time.

4. An abbreviated statement of facts is thus. On 18th June 2004, MSEDCL suffered an award in th e amoun t of Rs.1 79 cror es in an arbitration claim brought by DSL . The arbitra l tribuna l (Mr Justice VD Tulzapurkar, Mr Justice SC Pratap and Mr Justice ML Pendse) awarded interest at 10% per annum from the date o f th e awar d until payment. MSEDCL was also hel d liab le to p ay cos ts. These were quantified at Rs.1 crore, a very significant sum by any standards, and especially in 2004. There was no separate award of interest pendente lite.

5. MSEDCL filed a challenge Petition unde r Sectio n 3 4 of the Arbitration Act . The re w ere certain intervening events and proceedings, but these are not of immediate relevance to the present considerations. That challenge Petition was ultimately dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court (Mrs RS Dalvi J) on 18th March

2009. She imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000/- on MSEDCL.

6. DSL moved