LAWS(DLH)-2008-12-86

VIJAY GUPTA Vs. RENU MALHOTRA

Decided On December 19, 2008
VIJAY GUPTA Appellant
V/S
RENU MALHOTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A brief narration of factual matrix would suffice to decide an interesting and important issue pertaining to the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the execution petition. The appellant herein had filed an execution petition seeking enforcement of award dated 31.8.2005 whereby awarding a sum of Rs. 9,56,760/- with interest @ 10% from 1.9.2005 till payment. Learned Single Judge held that this Court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the said execution petition and therefore, Registry is directed to return the said execution petition to the decree holder for being filed before the appropriate court. It is on the premise that the High Court has original civil jurisdiction in respect of matters where the amount involved is more than Rs. 20 lakhs.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are as follows:-

(3.) THE learned Arbitrator had also passed some interim directions in exercise of his powers under Section 17 of the Act. The judgment debtor again approached this Court by filing application under Section 37(2)(b) of the Act (OMP NO.382/2004). This petition was also contested on merits. Initially, vide orders dated 29.10.2004 the impugned order was stayed subject to judgment debtor furnishing an undertaking that she would not dispose of the network/cable connection in question and will not create any third party interest therein. The judgment debtor had furnished such an undertaking. Ultimately, that OMP was also disposed of by orders dated 27.3.2006. In the meantime, as pointed above, the Arbitrator went ahead with the adjudication on the main disputes and rendered his award dated 31.8.2005 awarding a sum of Rs. 9,56,760/- with interest @ 10% per annum from 1.9.2005 till payment in favour of the appellant. Since the judgment debtor did not make payment, the decree holder filed Execution Petition No.4/2006, which has met the fate as mentioned above, namely, the learned Single Judge of this Court has refused to entertain the same for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.