9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Petition under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking precept issuance and transfer of execution petition to the Court of the learned District Judge, Bangalore, Karnataka.
Summary: 1. The petition under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sought the issuance of a precept to the Court of the learned District Judge, Bangalore, Karnataka where the assets/properties of the Judgment Debtors are located. The alternative prayer was for a direction to transfer the execution petition to the same Court in Bangalore, Karnataka. 2. As per the Award dated 10th October 2011, the Judgment Debtors were liable to pay the Decree Holder a specific sum along with interest and costs. The JDs and their assets were situated in Bangalore, Karnataka. 3. The Court discussed the execution of the Award as a decree under the Act, citing the case of Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. The Court clarified that the territorial jurisdiction for execution is determined by the location of the JD or their property. It was emphasized that the Court disposing of an application under Section 34 of the Act does not pass a decree, as the Award itself is executable as a decree. 4. The High Court of Madras's decision in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Sivakama Sundari S. Narayana S.B. Murthy was referenced, stating that in the absence of specific provisions, no executing Court can demand or order transmission of the decree. 5. Based on the above legal principles, the Court declined the prayer in the petition and advised the Decree Holder to approach the competent Court in Bangalore, Karnataka for the execution of the Award in accordance with the law. 6. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
