UZI JUSTMAN Vs. TELEPHONE CABLES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Execution is sought of an arbitral award having the force of a decree under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The arbitral award is for payment of US $1,80,000/- by the judgment debtor to the decree holder. The execution petition was originally filed in the court of the District Judge, Chandigarh in or about the year 2000. The judgment debtor filed objections to the execution. The decree holder applied to the Supreme Court for transfer of the execution petition outside Chandigarh and vide order dated 9th December, 2002 the said transfer petition was allowed and the execution proceedings transferred to the District Court, Delhi. While the execution proceedings were pending before the Additional District Judge, on 16th August, 2000 issues were framed as to whether the award is liable to be set aside. Some witnesses were also examined before the learned Additional District Judge.

(2.) The judgment debtor on or about 3rd July, 2003 filed an application under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 stating, inter alia, that the reference of the judgment debtor dated 21st October, 2002 before the BIFR had been registered as case No.712/2002 and praying for suspension / stay of the proceedings in the execution. However, subsequently realizing that the decree sought to be executed was for an amount beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge, the Execution proceedings were in or about the year 2006 transferred to this court and are pending since then.

(3.) The counsel for the decree holder, on 9th April, 2009 informed this court that the BIFR had granted permission to the decree holder to execute this decree against the judgment debtor but the said order of the BIFR had been stayed by the AAIFR. He, however, contended that the bar of Section 22(1) will not come in the way of the present execution. Thereafter also the proceedings were adjourned on 6th July, 2009 on the ground that the decree holder has moved an application before the AAIFR for vacation of the order of stay of the permission granted by the BIFR to pursue the present proceedings.