MOHAMMAD HASAN Vs. SHRI RAM FINANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The power of Superintendence is invoked u/S. 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the interlocutory order passed on 21.08.2015 by which objection in regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Executing Court for proceeding with the Execution Case u/S. 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been rejected after relying upon decision of the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Magma Fincorp Ltd v. Rajbhan Singh reported in 2015 (2) MPLJ page 706.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohit Bhargava v. Bharat Bhushan Bhargav and Ors. reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 419 to contend that the mandate in Sec. 38 and 39 r/w Order 21 Rule 3 CPC which is made applicable to execution proceedings by virtue of Sec. 36 of Act of 1996 is to the effect that execution case shall be filed in the same court where decree sought to be executed was passed.

(3.) Perusal of the finding recorded in the impugned order elicits that the court below has relied upon decision in the case of Magma (supra) which has upheld execution proceedings in respect of an Arbitral Award instituted in the Court where the property of Judgment Debtor was situated. The Single Bench in the said case was persuaded to the view that since an Arbitral Tribunal is not a Court and also due to inapplicability of Sec. 38 CPC to an award passed by Arbitral Tribunal. In Magma case the earlier decision of Single Bench of this court in the case of Computer Sciences Corporation India Pvt. Ltd v. Harishchandra Lodwal and Another reported in 2005 (4) MPLJ 164= AIR 2006 MP 34 has been distinguished on facts by holding that the case of Computer Science (supra) dealt with the issue of return of transfer of decree.