SLEEPWELL INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. Vs. LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The execution application was moved on 16th January 2014 for enforcement of a foreign award. At the time of receiving the said application an interim order was passed restraining the judgment debtor from withdrawing any sum from the bank accounts mentioned in paragraph 26 of the affidavit in support of the Tabular Statement, save and except, in the usual course of business. The original award and the certified copy of the agreement were produced in court. The originals were returned to the decree holder and photocopies were taken on record.

(2.) An objection appears to have been taken at the admission stage as to the maintainability of the said application. Thereafter, series of orders were passed. In fact, by an order dated 18th September 2014, I directed the judgment-debtor to file an affidavit in which the judgment debtor was directed to disclose the particulars of all bank accounts and the amounts lying to the credit of the judgment-debtor in each of such bank accounts with supporting documents mentioned in paragraph 26 of the affidavit in support of the Tabular Statement. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit affirmed by one Ranjit Kumar Das on 29th October 2014 has been filed. The affidavit gives a very bleak picture about financial condition of the judgment-debtor.

(3.) Mr. Tilak Bose, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, submits that this award is enforceable in law. Mr. Bose has referred to Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and submitted that once the decree-holder has produced the original award and a duly certified copy of the agreement for arbitration, the said award becomes enforceable. The said documents, in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, would be taken as evidence and on production of such evidence the award become enforceable. It is submitted that the preamble of the Act coupled with the provisions mentioned in part II of the said Act would clearly show that on fulfilment of the conditions in Part II legislature wants to ensure due enforcement of foreign awards and the Court should be inclined in favour of enforcement of the award rather than obstructing its enforcement. Mr. Bose has referred to the earlier Act regarding enforcement of foreign award, namely Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 and submitted that the preamble of the present Act would show that the legislature, after reviewing all the existing legislations on the subject, has passed a consolidated statute so that under one umbrella all these matters could be dealt with and decided. It is submitted that the affidavit disclosed in this proceedings would not show that any real challenge is thrown to the enforcement of the foreign award inasmuch as, according to the learned Senior Counsel, no application has been filed by the respondent taking objection to the maintainability of the execution application. It is submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the respondent to deal with the maintainability, but surprisingly the said respondent did not choose to file any objection or affidavit questioning the maintainability. The petitioner also referred to the affidavit filed in this proceedings by the respondent and submitted that it only reveals the impecunious situation of the respondent and it gives a clear impression that the respondent is trying to avoid execution of the award passed against it.