Execution of arbitral awards can be filed in any court where the debtor has assets, regardless of subsequent asset disclosures or jurisdiction alterations.

CAV ORDER

The petitioner/decree-holder is before this Court calling in question an order dated 04-11-2024 passed by the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bangalore in Commercial Execution No.541 of 2024 by which the application I.A.No.III filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC seeking a direction to the respondent to file an affidavit of particulars of its assets including but not limited to immovable, movable properties, bank accounts with balance, stock holdings, deposits and other investments, garnishees of the respondent along with necessary statements of accounts reflecting its current assets.

2. Heard Sri Aditya Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

The petitioner and the respondent, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (‘the Company’ for short) enter into an exclusive consultancy agreement (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’ for short) for a period of three years to commence from 23-01-2017 to 15-04-2019. The petitioner was appointed as an Exclusive Consultant and Design Director by the respondent. Remuneration payable to the petitioner was fixed at ₹4.25 lakhs per month up to March, 2017 and ₹4.80 lakhs per month from April, 2017 exclusive of service tax. The petitioner was also entitled to variable pay of 1% of the work order value, exclusive of tax for both ‘design’ and ‘design and build’ projects.

3.1. On 02-03-2019 the petitioner resigned as a Director in the Company with a request to accept it with effect from 01-04-2019. Owing to the delay in processing her handing over, the petitioner’s last pay in the Company was extended to 15-04- 2019 which is said to have been originally consented to by the respondent. The petitioner’s remuneration was not paid for the extended period, which led to causing of a legal notice and commencement of arbitration in terms of Clause 10 of the agreement. This Court allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition and appoints Sri C.K. Nandakumar, Senior Advocate as a sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator allows the claim directing payment of ₹59,79,087/- and ₹2,78,665/- and several other amounts. The award also directed payment of interest on the aforesaid claims.

3.2. The respondent/Company files a petition under Section 34 of the Act before the Commercial Court challenging the award of the Arbitrator in A.C.No.90 of 2022. No stay of award was sought.

In that light the petitioner prefers an execution petition before the Court at Thane, for the reason that the registered office of the respondent was at Thane, Maharashtra. The said proceeding is pending consideration. The Commercial Court before which the Company had preferred Arbitration Case No.90 of 2022 dismisses the petition on 19-06-2024. After its dismissal, the petitioner files an execution petition before the Commercial Court at Bangalore in Commercial Execution No.541 of 2024 seeking execution of the award which then stood at ₹1,27,20,824/-.

3.3. The issue that has driven the petitioner to this Court is not the merit of the claim in the execution petition. Before the executing Court, the petitioner sought declaration of movable property of the respondent at a particular address. The respondent/Company files a memo appending to it deed of surrender of lease on 26-09-2024 of its office at Bangalore and states that there are no movable assets in the City for being attached. The petitioner then files an application under Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC directing attendance of an authorized representative of the respondent/co