SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 142

J.CHELAMESWAR, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
ABDUL SAMAD – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

हां, मध्यस्थता पुरस्कार (Arbitral Award) की 执行 (Execution) देश के कहीं भी उस अदालत में दायर की जा सकती है जहां निर्णय-दाता (Judgment Debtor) के संपत्ति स्थित हैं या जहां डिक्री निष्पादित की जा सकती है। इसके लिए सबसे पहले मध्यस्थता स्थल की अदालत में दाखिल करके डिक्री ट्रांसफर कराने की आवश्यकता नहीं है। (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000603850021]

मध्यस्थता और सुलह अधिनियम, 1996 की धारा 36 के तहत पुरस्कार को सिविल प्रक्रिया संहिता की डिक्री के समान निष्पादित किया जाता है, लेकिन यह किसी विशेष अदालत द्वारा पारित डिक्री नहीं है। इसलिए, सीपीसी की धारा 38, 39 या 42 (मध्यस्थता अधिनियम) का प्रतिबंध लागू नहीं होता। पुरस्कार सीधे उस अदालत में निष्पादित किया जा सकता है जहां संपत्ति है। (!) (!) (!) [1000603850014][1000603850021]

मध्यस्थ कार्यवाही (Arbitral Proceedings) धारा 32 के तहत पुरस्कार जारी होने पर समाप्त हो जाती है, इसलिए धारा 42 केवल कार्यवाही के दौरान लागू होती है, निष्पादन पर नहीं। (!) (!) [1000603850018]


JUDGMENT

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. The divergence of legal opinion of different High Courts on the question as to whether an award under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) is required to be first filed in the court having jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings for execution and then to obtain transfer of the decree or whether the award can be straightway filed and executed in the Court where the assets are located is required to be settled in the present appeal.

Facts:

2. The appellant claims that the first respondent approached the appellant for grant of a loan for purchase of a Tata Lorry-HCV 2005 model, which loan was granted by the appellant on the terms & conditions specified in the Loan Agreement dated 18.8.2005. Respondent No.2 is stated to have stood guarantee for the repayment of the loan by executing a separate guarantee letter of the same date. The loan had to be repaid in installments commencing 3.9.2005 to 3.1.2009.

3. The appellant alleges that respondent No.1 committed default in payment from the 20th installment onwards. The repossession, however, of the vehicle could not take place and in order to recover the


























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top