While an arbitral award can generally be executed where assets are located, if assets are available within the jurisdiction of the court overseeing the arbitral proceedings (the seat), there is no legal necessity to invoke the jurisdiction of another court.

ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the III Addl. District Judge, Sangareddy, in E.P. No.402 of 2022 in Arbitration case No.1 of 2020.

2. Heard Sri V. Seetha Rama Avadhani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hirendernath, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner company is an established transport company. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner company and the respondent organization for the transportation of the respondent's employees for a period of five years, i.e. from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2023. During the subsistence of the contract, disputes arose with regard to the payment. As per the agreement, the petitioner filed an application u/s 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act before this Court. Subsequently, the Hon’ble High Court appointed Hon’ble Sri Justice Samdudrala Govindarajulu as sole Arbitrator. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Hon’ble Arbitrator passed an Award dated 24.12.2020 in favour of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Hon’ble Arbitrator, while passing the Award, granted a period of three months to the respondent for depositing the awarded amount together with interest at 12% per annum from 08.05.2022 to 14.08.2022. According to the petitioner, the total amount payable under the Award, inclusive of interest, is Rs.45,15,771/- (Rupees Forty-Five Lakhs, Fifteen Thousand, Seven Hundred and Seventy-One only). The respondent company, being a manufacturing concern, has sufficient means to pay the awarded amount. However, the respondent has neither deposited the awarded amount in any Court nor paid the same to the petitioner. Further, no appeal or other proceedings have been preferred by the respondent against the Award.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the petitioner Company had filed E.P. No.402 of 2022 before the III Addl. District Judge, Sangareddy, for attachment and realization of the execution petition amount with costs, but the said Court dismissed the said execution petition by observing that the jurisdiction of the said court is ousted by virtue of provisions under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Accordingly, he submits that unless this Hon’ble Court directs attachment of the properties of the respondent company situated within Medak District, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and hardship.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent filed counter in the said Execution Petition by contending that in respect of the final Arbitration Awarded dated 24.12.2020, an application was filed u/s 34(2)(a)(iv) & (b)(ii) r/w (2A) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the said Award before the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, vide AOP No.59 of 2022.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that Clause 82 of the contract between the claimant and the respondent expressly stipulates that the venue of arbitration shall be Hyderabad in the event of any dispute between the parties. He further submits that, having regard to Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the place as well as the venue of arbitration was Hyderabad, and the arbitral proceedings were admittedly conducted there. Consequently, according to the respondent, the Courts at Hyderaba