Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 1071 - DELHI HIGH COURTSeeking execution of an ex parte Award - whether the Award dated 9.5.2005 was an Award/decree which was illegal, non est and void in law and therefore could not be executed inasmuch as effectively the Award was passed for enforcement of protection money amounts? - HELD THAT:- The executing court by reference to Sections 23 and 24 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 has held the agreement to be illegal/non est/void by holding that really the agreement pertains to basically protection money being payable by the bus owners to the petitioner. The executing court has also observed that issues which are raised in the agreement effectively make the petitioner a super traffic police man under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and which position is inconceivable in law. Executing court has also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Radhey Shyam and others for holding that an illegal Award cannot be executed. The contention urged on behalf of the counsel for the respondent agreed upon, that really the amount received under the Agreement dated 6.10.2004 was protection money being paid when the buses used to ply through 'area' under the 'control' of the petitioner. Surely, the petitioner is not a Traffic Inspector under the Motor Vehicles Act or any other designated authority under the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore if the petitioner is given money by each bus owner running buses on route no. 212 it can only be because either the petitioner was a 'saint' who was trusted by all the bus owners for disciplining the bus owners or actually the petitioner is a notorious person who was taking money in the guise of the Agreement dated 6.10.2004, and in my opinion, actually it is the latter which the petitioner is and with respect to which aspect one is left in doubt when one reads the clauses of the Agreement dated 6.10.2004 and the reasoning given by the executing court below. The issues which have been raised and decided by the impugned judgment were therefore not decided by the court in which objections were filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation, 1996. An Award which is a nullity being against public policy can always be challenged even at the stage of execution inasmuch as, if we take a most extreme example that an Award is passed that 'A' will steal money for 'B' then surely 'B' cannot enforce the Award/decree stating that 'A' should give him particular amount of money which was to be stolen by 'B' for being given to 'A'. There is no merit in the petition which is an abuse of the process of law and is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited within a period of four weeks with the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund - It is clarified that in case the respondents have paid any amount to the petitioner pursuant to the illegal Award dated 09.2.2005, the respondents are entitled to restitution under Section 144 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and other powers of restitution provided in law alongwith the interest @ 12% per annum simple. The restitution proceedings can be initiated in the executing court itself by the respondents.
|