HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs. SIMA MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A bank seeks to implement an arbitral award made on July 21, 2009. It says that there is no petition filed by the judgment-debtors for setting aside the award. The bank asserts that, in view of an award becoming a deemed decree under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 it has to be enforced as such under the Civil Procedure Code. The decree is less than two years old. There is no necessity for the judgment-debtors to be given immediate notice upon receipt of the execution proceedings. The simple prayer that the decree holder has made is for a direction on the receiver appointed in proceedings under Section 9 of the 1996 Act to encash a fixed deposit made by the receiver of the proceeds from the sale of the vehicle which was the subject matter of the agreement.

(2.) The decree-holder has understandably been taken aback that without there being any scope for opposition, the decree-holder has been called upon to demonstrate that a civil Court would have the authority to implement an award in respect of a matter that is capable of adjudication before a Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The question as to the jurisdiction of a civil Court to implement such an award arises upon the definition of "debt" found in Section 2(g) of the 1993 Act.

(3.) Prior to the amending Act of 2000 that made substantial changes to the 1993 Act, "debt" was defined in such Act as follows :