In cases of payment appropriation, the decree holder's discretion prevails unless restricted by court order or mutual agreement, aligning with established principles of the Arbitration Act.

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 in execution and proceeded to attach MSEDCL’s bank accounts. Th e single Judge hearing Execution Applications (SC Dharmadhikari J) directed MSEDC L to furnish a bank guarantee in the amount of Rs.75 crores and raise d attachmen t on MSEDCL’s bank accounts subject to fulfilment of that condition.

7. MSEDCL appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act . On 2nd May 2009, a Division Bench (J N Patel J, as he then was, and Mrs Mridula Bhatkar J) stayed th e execution of the decree subject to two conditions; (i) that MSEDCL would deposi t Rs.179 crores in Cour t befor e 29th June 2009; and (ii) tha t MSEDCL woul