2008 (7) TMI 1076 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Implementation of an award.
2. Satisfaction of the award by deposit.
3. Execution of the award.
4. Interpretation of the award's terms.
5. Application of res judicata.
6. Reciprocal obligations under the award.
7. Role of the executing court.

Summary:

1. Implementation of an Award:
The applications concern the implementation of an award where the judgment-debtor, KND Engineering Technologies Limited, claims satisfaction of the award upon deposit made in Court, while the decree-holders, Fab Leathers Limited and Chroma Business Limited, seek execution in terms of the award.

2. Satisfaction of the Award by Deposit:
The judgment-debtor argues that the award is a money award simpliciter and that the deposit made under Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure should satisfy the decree. The decree-holders had previously interpreted the award as a money award, but now assert that the award requires the conveyance of property.

3. Execution of the Award:
The decree-holders had earlier sought a sale of the Shakespeare Sarani property through a receiver, which was dismissed on June 11, 2002. The judgment-debtor contends that the decree-holders cannot now assert a different interpretation due to the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata.

4. Interpretation of the Award's Terms:
The award provides for payment of Rs. 6,82,62,117/- with interest at 15% per annum. If not paid within three months, the decree-holders are entitled to a conveyance of premises No. 30, Shakespeare Sarani. The judgment-debtor argues that the award's reference to the property was only by way of security and does not convert it into a different nature of award.

5. Application of Res Judicata:
The judgment-debtor cites previous decisions to argue that the principles of res judicata apply, making the earlier interpretation of the award binding. The decree-holders counter that the second paragraph of the June 11, 2002 order, which states that the award provides a particular mode of satisfaction, should also operate as res judicata.

6. Reciprocal Obligations Under the Award:
The judgment-debtor suggests that the decree-holders have failed to act in accordance with the terms of the award, and thus, the judgment-debtor's offer for payment should be accepted. The decree-holders argue that they are entitled to the property and the balance decretal debt upon the expiry of the three-month period.

7. Role of the Executing Court:
The executing court cannot modify the decree but can interpret it. The court finds that the valuation of the property is open to interpretation and should be contemporaneously assessed. The judgment-debtor is directed to convey the property within six weeks, and the valuation should be completed within four weeks. If either party owes money after the conveyance, it should be settled within a fortnight.

Conclusion:
The applications are disposed of with directions for the judgment-debtor to convey the property and for a valuation to be conducted. The parties are to bear their own costs, and the judgment-debtor's request for a stay of operation of the order is declined.