$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 9^th December, 2024 + C.R.P. 371/2024 & CM APPL. 71816/2024 NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED Through its Authorised Representative, NTPC Bhawan, Scope Complex, 9 Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneet Taneja, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Yadav, Mr. Manmohan Singh Narula & Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocates.

versus GAMMON INDIA LIMITED Gammon House, Veer Sarvarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ishan Nager, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral)

CM APPL. 71817/2024 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The Application is disposed of.

C.R.P. 371/2024:

3. The present Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor against the Order dated 31.07.2024 vide which its Objections under Section Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.R.P. 371/2024 Page 1 of 11

47 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1996”) against the Execution of the Award dated 21.10.2004, in the Execution Petition No.

429/2021, has been dismissed.

4. The Respondent/Decree Holder filed the Execution Petition bearing No. 429/2021 on 20.06.2021 before the learned Trial Court for execution of the Award dated 21.10.2004 against which the Appeal Under Section 37 of the Act, filed by both the parties was decided on 06.09.2012.

5. The main Objection taken by the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor was that the principal amount got paid on 21.07.2007 which was accepted by the Respondent/Decree Holder without any protest. The Execution of the Award dated 21.10.2004 could have been sought within three years of the date of Award, in terms of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the Execution Petition filed on 23.10.2021, is patently barred by limitation.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor has placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Larsen and Tourbo Limited vs. Maharaji Educational Trust, 2010 SCC OnLine All 1866, Arif Azim Company Limited vs. Aptech Limited, (2024) 5 SCC 313, Paramjeet Singh Patheja vs. ICDS Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 322 and Government of India vs. Vedanta Limited (formerly Cairn India Limited) and Ors., (2020) 10 SCC 1. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Decree Holder has vehemently opposed the contentions made on behalf of the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor and has asserted that Section 36 of the Act, 1996 itself provides that the Award is to be executed like a Decree of the Court and therefore, Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable which provides that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.R.P. 371/2024 Page 2 of 11 limitation for execution of a Court Decree is 12 years. It is further contended that giving the benefit of the COVID-19 Pandemic from 20.03.2020, the Execution Petition has been filed within a period of 12 years and is not barred by limitation.

8. Submissions heard and record perused.

9. The Arbitral Tribunal had delivered the Award on 21.10.2004 which was challenged under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 by the Petitioner which was partly allowed vide Order dated 26.05.2008 by the Single Judge of this Court. Aggrieved by the said Order of the ld. Single Judge, both the parties preferred Appeals bearing numbers FAO No. 337/2008 and FAO No. 430/2008 which were decided by the Division Bench vide Order dated

06.09.2012, upholding the Order of the Ld. Single Judge.

10. The points for determination which arise are: -

(i) whether the Award is a Decree, and whether the limitation is three years under Article 137, or it is twelve years in terms of Article 136 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act, 1963, for seeking execution of the Arbitral Award; and (ii) what is the date for reckoning the period of twelve years.

Whether Award is a Court Decree?

11. To consider this first question, it would be relevant to refer to Section 35 and S.