2019 (1) TMI 2034 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking to be impleaded as petitioner/decree holder in OMP - HELD THAT - It is well settled that a party claiming itself to be a beneficiary under a decree cannot seek execution of the decree in its own name. Reliance can be placed on the ratio in Lalmani Kuer Vs. Raghubansi Devi 1944 (2) TMI 27 - PATNA HIGH COURT to the effect that a beneficiary who alleges himself to be the real decree holder has no locus to claim that he is entitled to execute the decree in his own name. Furthermore, the question of liability inter se of the applicant and the decree holder as also the question as to in whose favour the award is to be executed are beyond the scope of the present OMP (Enf.). It is settled proposition of law that questions between two parties who both claim to represent the same party are beyond the scope of Section 47 CPC. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impleadment of applicant as Petitioner/Decree Holder in OMP (Enf.) (Comm.) No.3/2016.
2. Authorization for filing execution petition.
3. Adjudication of applicant's claim in the Arbitral Award.
4. Liability inter se of the applicant and the decree holder.

Analysis:
1. The applicant, a part of a consortium, sought impleadment as Petitioner/Decree Holder in OMP (Enf.) (Comm.) No.3/2016. The applicant argued that being a legal entity forming the consortium, it should be added as a Decree Holder. However, the judgment clarified that the award was in favor of the consortium, not the applicant individually. The Tribunal did not consider the applicant as the claimant, and thus, seeking impleadment as co-decree holder at the execution stage was not permissible. Citing legal precedent, the court dismissed the application, stating that once a dispute is settled, an application for impleadment does not lie.
2. The applicant contended that it lacked authorization for filing the execution petition. However, the court rejected this argument, pointing out that the addendum agreement authorized the lead member of the consortium to manage all aspects, including financial matters. Therefore, the claim of lack of authorization was dismissed.
3. The judgment highlighted that the applicant's claim was adjudicated as part of the consortium, not independently. Even if the applicant's claim was considered in the award, it could not seek enforcement as a beneficiary since it was not joined as a co-claimant in the arbitration proceedings. Legal principles were cited to support the ruling that a party claiming to be a beneficiary under a decree cannot execute the decree in its own name.
4. The issue of liability between the applicant and the decree holder, as well as the question of in whose favor the award should be executed, was deemed beyond the scope of the present OMP (Enf.). Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that such questions between parties representing the same party were not within the purview of Section 47 CPC. As a result, the court dismissed the application, stating that the questions raised were beyond the scope of the current proceedings.