DAELIM INDUSTRIAL CO LTD Vs. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OBJECTION of the judgment debtor to the territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain this execution petition of an arbitral award dated 23rd September, 2000 as affirmed/modified by judgment dated 6th September, 2007 of the Apex Court in Civil Appeals No. 4079/2007 and 4080/2007 is for consideration.

(2.) THE decree holder filed the execution petition in this court stating, inter alia, that out of the awarded amounts, a sum of Rs 4,98,97,205.00 had been received on 29th February, 2008 as part payment, without prejudice, by the decree holder; that a sum of Rs 34,22,19,014.06 was still outstanding under the award and seeking execution of the award as a decree by issuance of warrants of attachment of the movable and immovable assets of the judgment debtor lying at 6th floor, 15-17, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi and by attachment of the monies lying in the accounts of the judgment debtor with the State Bank of India, New Delhi Main Branch, New Delhi.

(3.) DURING the subsequent hearing on 28th July, 2008, Brace Transport Corporation (supra) was held to be not applicable since in relation to foreign awards, subject matter of that case, the jurisdiction was governed under the proviso to Section 47 of the Act and it was further felt that jurisdiction in relation domestic award is governed by Section 2(e) of the Act. However, it was found that the Apex Court in Merla Ramanna Vs Nallaparaju AIR 1956 SC 87 had held that the court to whose jurisdiction the subject matter of the decree is transferred, acquires inherent jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition, notwithstanding Section 38 of the CPC. It was further held in the order dated 28th July, 2008 that the subject matter of the decree being money lying in the bank account of the judgment debtor within the jurisdiction of this court, and further since the decree holder has submitted that it will face difficulties in applying for execution in the courts at Golaghat, Assam, warrants of attachment of the monies lying in the account of the judgment debtor with the State Bank of India, New Delhi Main Branch, were ordered to be attached. The attachment did not yield any result since no money was found on that date in the account of the judgment debtor.