2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 318
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J
GROWTH TECHNO PROJECTS LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
ISHWAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED – Respondent
OMP (ENF.) (COMM.)-224/2023
Advocates:
Mr. Manish Vashisht, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vanshay Kaul, Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Mr. Aman Singh, Advs.; Ms. Ekta Mehta, Ms. Zainab Khan, Advs.
The limitation period for enforcing an arbitral award resumes from the date of the amendment to Section 36, excluding the time during which objections were pending.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 36 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 136 - Enforcement of arbitral award - The court examined the enforceability of an arbitral award dated 17.07.2007, determining that the limitation period for enforcement commenced from the date of the award and was subject to exclusion during the pendency of objections under Section 34. The court ruled that the enforcement petition filed in November 2023 was within the limitation period. (Paras 1, 19, 22)
(B) Limitation - The court clarified that the period of limitation for enforcement of an arbitral award is not reset by amendments to the law but resumes from the date the stay on enforcement is lifted. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought enforcement of an arbitral award against the judgment debtor, who claimed the petition was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond 12 years from the award date. The petitioner argued that the limitation period was tolled due to the pendency of objections under Section 34.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the enforcement petition was within the limitation period, as the period from the filing of objections until the amendment in 2015 was excluded.
Issues: The main issues were whether the limitation period for enforcement began from the date of the arbitral award or from the date of the amendment to Section 36.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the limitation period for enforcement of the arbitral award resumed from the date of the amendment, and the objections raised by the judgment debtor were dismissed.
Result: The enforcement petition is allowed, and the judgment debtor is directed to deposit the awarded amount.
JUDGEMENT:JASMEET SINGH, (J)
1. This is a petition under section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as „Act‟) read with Order XXI Rule 10 & 11(2) of the CPC, seeking enforcement of the arbitral award dated 17.07.2007 passed by the learned Arbitrator, Justice P. K. Bahri (Retd.), in Arbitration Case No. 380/2004, titled as „M/s Ishwar Industries Ltd. v. M/s Growth Techno Projects Ltd.‟
2. The operative portion of the arbitral award reads asunder: “74. In view of the findings given above, I make the award as follows: -
I. That M/s. Ishwar Industries Ltd. shall pay to M/s. Growth Techno Project Rs.3,06,32,550/- (Rupeesthree crore, six lac, thirty-two thousand five hundred and fifty) on or before 31stOctober,
2007. II. That in case of default in paying the aforesaid amount in time given, M/s. Ishwar Industries Ltd. shallpay interest @ 12% per annum on the unpaid amount from the date of the default till payment.
III. That the claims of M/s. Ishwar Industries Ltd. are rejected.
IV. In view of the peculiar facts, the parties are left to bear their own costs.”
3. The petitioner/decree holder, by way of the present petition, avers that the respondent/judgment debtor, has not made any payment towards the arbitral award till date and thus, stands liable to pay the awarded amount along with an interest of 12% per annum. The decree holder further submits that at the time of filing of the present petition, a total of 191 months have passed and therefore, calculating the interest @ 12% per annum, the decree holder is entitled to a total amount of Rs. 8,90,79,455/-.
4. The judgment debtor, per contra, has objected to the maintainability of the present petition, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. A brief summary of the submissions made by the judgment debtor in this regard are as under:
a. A bare reading of Section 36 of the Act indicates that an arbitral award shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the CPC, in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. In this regard, reference has been made to Article 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a time period of twelve years to seek execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any civil court. In the instant case, it is averred that the award became enforceable on 17.07.2007, i.e., the date of its passing, or 31.10.2007, i.e., the date of default by when the awarded amount was to be paid to the decree holder, and therefore, the period of limitation stood elapsed, as on 16.07.2019 or 31.10.2019, which is a period of 12 years from these respective dates. However, since the present execution petition was filed in November 2023, the same is stated to be beyond the period of 12 years and hence, barred by limitation.
b. Petitions/Objections under Section 34 of the Act were filed by both the parties; however, the decree holder withdrew its petitionon 02.02.2024 and it is only the judgment debtor‟s petition thatremains pending before this Court. Owing to this pendency, the judgment debtor contends that the arbitral award in question, is not final. It is submitted that the CPC contemplates the enforcement of a final award, which would only be the case, once the petitions filed by the judgment debtor under Section 34 of the Act are dismissed/disposed of.
c. Furthermore, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Construction Company Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others, [(2020) 17 SCC 324], to contend that in cases where a petition under Section 34 was filed challenging an arbitral award, even the pre-amended Section 36 of the Act did not provide for an automatic stay on the enforcement of an award, and only contemplated enforcement either upon the expiry of time to make an application under Section 34 of the Act seeking setting aside of the arbitral award, or such application having been made and then being ref
Click Here to Read the rest of this document