S.K. BROTHERS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE execution petition 234/2008 has been filed for execution of the arbitral award dated 16th January, 2008 and in para 7 of the execution application 'amount of suit Along with interest as per decree or any other relief granted by the decree' is stated to be Rs 15,80,833.61 with interest at 18 % per annum from 2nd July, 2008 till the date of realization of the amount. The arbitral award is engrossed on stamp paper of Rs 500/ -.

(2.) EXECUTION petition 235/2008 has been filed for execution of an arbitral award dated 20th December, 2007. In para 7 of the application the 'amount of suit Along with interest as per decree or any other relief granted by the decree' is stated to be Rs 19,02,725/ - with interest at 18% per annum from 2nd July, 2008 till the date of realisation of the amount. The arbitral award is engrossed on stamp paper of Rs 800/ -.

(3.) THE counsel for the decree holders has sought to justify the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the execution petitions for the reason of this Court, in both the cases having exercised the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) and further for the reason of this Court having again exercised jurisdiction (again in both the cases) under Section 15(2) of the Act for substituting the arbitrator appointed earlier. The counsel for the decree holders has submitted that since the petitions under Sections 11(6) and 15(2) of the Act had been made to this Court, under Section 42 of the Act, notwithstanding the value of the pecuniary jurisdiction in both the cases being below the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, this Court would have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the execution applications. Reliance in this regard was placed on a judgment of a single Bench of this Court in Damayanti Builders v. Union of India reported as 2003 (3) Arb. LR 530. Undoubtedly it was held in the said judgment that the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act would lie before this Court only, for the reason of this Court having exercised jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act. Reliance was also placed on certain observations to the same effect in order dated 13.12.2004 of another Single Bench of this Court in OMP 418/2004.