BHARAT HARMONIUM WORKS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Dev Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1-State of Uttar Pradesh. Though neither the State of Uttar Pradesh, nor the court, which has passed the order under challenge in this petition are necessary parties to this petition, however, on the request of the Court, learned Standing Counsel has rendered his assistance in the matter.

(2.) These proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been instituted by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'judgment debtor') assailing the validity of an order dated 06.09.2014, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, whereby the objection raised by the judgment debtor as regards the jurisdiction of the court at Pratapgarh to proceed with the execution of an arbitral award given at Aurangabad, Maharashtra, has been rejected.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an application seeking execution of an arbitral award dated 06.03.2012 was filed by the respondent no.3 (hereinafter referred to as 'decree holder') before the district court at Pratapgarh on 21.09.2013, under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on which the Munsarim had reported that since the Transfer Certificate of the decree sought to be executed has not been obtained from the court concerned, as such the execution can proceed only after the same is received. His further submission is that since the arbitral award was made at district-Aurangabad, Maharashtra, as such the application seeking execution of the award ought to have been preferred by the decree holder in the court at Aurangabad and if the court at Aurangabad was of the view that the award has not been satisfied, the award could have been sent to the court at Pratapgarh for its execution after following the provisions contained in Section 39 and Order XXI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. His submission, in sum and substance, is that though it is correct that the execution of an arbitral award can be made by the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the properties etc. of the judgment debtor from whom the realization of money could be made are situated, however, the same can be done only after the award is transferred in terms of the provision contained in Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has further drawn attention of the Court to the provisions of Order XXI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has submitted that the said provision provides a complete procedure where the Court desires that its decree shall be executed by another court. According to the said provision, the court sending a decree for execution shall send a copy of the decree and a certificate setting forth therein that satisfaction of the decree has not been obtained by the execution within the jurisdiction of the court by which it was passed. The Court, under the said provision, is also required to send a copy of the order for the execution of the decree or if no such order has been made, then certificate to that effect.