LAWS(HPH)-2006-8-32

MAHINDRA & COMPANY Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Decided On August 29, 2006
Mahindra And Company Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE had been some agreement between Mahindra & Company, hereinafter referred to as decree holder, and the State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Forest), whereby Maple Shuttle Blocks were agreed to be supplied by the State of Himachal Pradesh and other judgment debtors to the decree holder. It appears that the judgment debtors did not supply the entire agreed quantity of the Shuttle Blocks. The matter was referred to the Arbitrator in terms of the agreement. The Arbitrator gave an award that the decree holder was entitled to the supply of 109.803 cubic meters of Maple Shuttle Blocks. The award was submitted to this Court and was made rule of Court by this Court, vide decree dated 18.6.1984 and it was ordered that 109.803 cubic meters Maple Shuttle Blocks would be supplied to the decree holder by the judgment debtors within one year. On the asking of the judgment debtors, the period was extended twice, initially by one year and then up to 31.12.1986. The judgment debtors supplied only 11.427 cubic meters of Maple Shuttle Blocks out of 109.803 cubic meters. On 22.12.1989 the present execution petition was filed by the decree holder.

(2.) THE judgment debtors have filed reply-cum-objections. It is alleged that the execution petition is barred by time, because the date of decree is 8.6.1984 whereas the execution petition has been filed on 22.12.1998. Another objection raised by the judgment debtors is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad etc. vs. Union of India and others, (AIR 1997 SC 1228) has imposed ban on felling of trees and because of this ban the Shuttle Blocks of Maple timber cannot be supplied.

(3.) AS regards the second objection, it is stated that the judgment debtors are bound to supply the Maple Shuttle Blocks in accordance with the decree and in case they feel that supply of the Blocks has become impossible, they should pay damages to the tune of rupees fifteen lacs, on account of loss sustained by the decree holder.