DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. BHAI SARDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid execution appeal, namely, EFA (OS) 9/2007 has been preferred by the appellant DDA to impugn the judgment dated 20th March, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Execution Application No. 81/2006 in Execution Petition No. 168/2005, whereby the said application preferred by the appellant herein, who was the judgment debtor in the execution petition, has been dismissed. EA No. 81/2006 had been preferred by the appellant to seek a direction that the amount of Rs. 19,95,291/- be refunded to the appellant/judgment debtor.

(2.) SO far as FAO (OS) 93/2002 is concerned, the same was disposed of by this Court on 20th April, 2004. However, the respondent/decree holder thereafter moved CM No. 5462/2007 to permit the withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 12,88,770/- lying deposited in this Court. On this application, the court on 23rd April, 2008 passed an order that the same would be considered at the time of disposal of EFA (OS) 9/2007.

(3.) WE may give a brief factual background giving rise to the execution appeal. In relation to a construction contract between the parties, some disputes arose. They were referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator rendered an Award. The Award dated 12. 8. 1998 was challenged by the appellant DDA by filing objections under Sections 30 and 31 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The respondent took an objection that it is the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 which was applicable and the objections preferred by the DDA were not maintainable. This submission of the respondent was accepted by the learned Single Judge who dismissed the objections preferred by the DDA as not maintainable. The DDA preferred FAO (OS) 93/2002 against the dismissal of the objections by the learned Single Judge. On 15. 3. 2002, in CM no. 219/2002 the Court stayed the execution of the decree which followed the dismissal of the objections preferred by the DDA, subject to the appellant dda depositing the amount due and payable under the decree within a period of four weeks. The amount was directed to be kept in a short term deposit by the Registry. The aforesaid appeal FAO (OS) 93/2002 was admitted. An amount of Rs. 58,80,380/- was deposited by the appellant DDA and this position was recorded in the subsequent order dated 20th May, 2002 passed in the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent moved CM No. 443/2003 to seek withdrawal of the amount deposited by the appellant. Counsel for the appellant DDA repeatedly sought time to file objections to this application of the respondent. The aforesaid application for seeking withdrawal of the deposited amount, however, remained pending, as no consequential orders were passed thereon.