MSTC LIMITED Vs. KRISHNA COKE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present application, the judgment debtor has sought dismissal of an execution proceeding initiated by the award-debtor on the ground that, the Court has no jurisdiction.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the award-debtor has submitted that, the award-debtor does not have any asset within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. He has relied upon 2018 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases page 622 (Sundaram Finance Limited v. Abdul Samad and Anr.) in support of the proposition that, an execution petition can be filed before the Court where the assets of the award-debtor are located. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the averments made at Paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support of the Master Summons and submitted that, the award-debtor categorically stated that, the award debtor does not have any asset or property within the jurisdiction of this Court. The award-debtor is described in the cause title of the proceeding to be located outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, none of the directors and principal officers of the award-debtor are residing within the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The award holder did not state in its application for execution that any asset of the award-debtor is within the jurisdiction of the Court. The person whom the award-holder seeks to examine on oath, on behalf of the award- debtor, is also not a resident within the jurisdiction of the Court. Consequently, according to him, the Court having no jurisdiction, the execution proceeding should be dismissed.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the award-holder has submitted that, the award-holder is not aware of all the assets and properties of the award-debtor. The award-debtor may have some assets and properties within the jurisdiction. In order to find out as to whether the award- debtor has not any asset or property within the jurisdiction, it is imperative that, the award-holder is allowed to examine the award-debtor on oath. He has relied upon All India Report 1986 Calcutta page 328 (Shew Kumar Nopany v. Grindlays Bank Limited) and All India Report 2009 Calcutta page 227 (D.V.M. Construction and Ors. v. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd.) and submitted that, an application for examination of the award-debtor is not an application for execution but an application in aid of the execution. He has submitted that, the Court should postpone the decision, as to the jurisdiction of the Court, till after the award-debtor is examined on oath.