TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said to be award and therefore would fall outside the provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and can certainly be declared as a nullity in an appropriate proceeding including under section 47 of CPC at the stage of execution of the award. The plea of nullity with regard to the arbitral award can be taken under section 47 of the CPC , but in a very narrow campus. Whether the arbitral award in the present case could be assailed as a nullity and hence non-executable within the permissible grounds of raising such a plea? - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered view that the point as to whether the realisable value with respect to one or the other creditor was nil or otherwise certainly require close examination of the resolution plan read with the orders passed by NCLT/NCLAT/Supreme Court which itself is a debatable issue on facts as well as on law. In view of the aforesaid situation and in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case, the arbitral proceedings culminating in the award involved in this case, cannot be said to be suffering from inherent lack of jurisdiction. Upon perusal of the proceedings of the facilitation council, this court fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facilitation council was determined to be nil, does not find support from the approved resolution plan placed on record by the petitioner themselves. In such circumstances, there was no occasion for the respondent to challenge the resolution plan. Admittedly, some of the creditors (operational/financial) had challenged the resolution plan with respect to their claim and provisions made in the resolution plan but all such objections /challenges were dismissed and there has been no interference in the approved resolution plan at any stage. Irrespective of maintainability of the objection to arbitral award under section 47 of the CPC, on facts, the Facilitation Council did not lose its jurisdiction to proceed and pronounce the arbitral award on account of approval of the insolvency resolution plan of the petitioner under section 31 of the IBC. This is on account of the reason that the arbitral proceedings were initiated prior to insolvency resolution date, suspended during the moratorium period, resumed upon expiry of the moratorium period and the approved resolution plan did not determine the claim of the respondent as nil whose pending litigation before the west Bengal facili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly typed as Commercial Court)/District Judge-1st, Bokaro, in Commercial Execution Case No. 21 of 2022 (Execution Case No. 77 of 2018), whereby and whereunder application dated 14.05.2019 filed by the judgment debtor is dismissed and the judgment debtor is directed to comply the Award dated 06.07.2018 passed by West Bengal Micro, Small and Medium Facilitation Council, Kolkata, within 15 days from this order; And/Or (ii) For further issuance of an appropriate order/direction as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner. 3. The present proceedings arise out of execution case instituted by the respondent for execution of arbitration award dated 06.07.2018 under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for a total amount of Rs. 1,59,09,214.33 plus interest @ 3% of bank rate of RBI Compounded with monthly rests. The award was passed by the West Bengal Facilitation Council under the provisions of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred as MSME Act ) in case number 330 and 331 of 2014. Admittedly, the award was not challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration Concilia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-6 of the main petition to submit that a few of the operational creditors had moved the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi by stating that their rights have not been duly protected, but since the resolution plan was already approved, their debt was less than 10% of the total debt, their petition was ultimately rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the award was not challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, objection could have been taken at the stage of its enforcement when it is sought to be enforced under section 36 of the aforesaid Act of 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 8 SCC 565 para 4, to submit that it has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that the objection in connection with stamping of the arbitral award could have been raised under Section 47 of the CPC at the stage of enforcement of the award under section 36 of the Act of 1996. He has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in (2022) 2 SCC 290 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of law under which their objection was filed before the executing court, but at best it is referable to Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel submits that it has been held by this Court in the judgment reported in AIR 2012 Jhar 53 that in a matter of execution proceedings arising out of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, objection under Section 47 of CPC is not maintainable. He has also submitted that an elaborate reasoned decision with respect to the same point has been rendered by the Hon ble Patna High Court in the judgment reported in AIR 2016 Patna 202 para15 onwards. The learned counsel submits that such view has been taken considering the fact that there is mandate of expeditious disposal in the matter of Arbitration and Conciliation proceedings and least jurisdictional intervention has been prescribed. He has also referred to Section 5 of the aforesaid Act of 1996. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 1 SCC 407 (Innoventive Industries Limited vs. ICICI Bank Another) para 29. 12. The learned counsel has referred to the provisions of Section 238 of Insolvency and Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot included in the list of the pending litigation settled as NIL. 18. The learned counsel has further referred to the counter-affidavit at page 73 title as Notes on Claims under Dispute pre corporate insolvency resolution process and Claims rejected and has submitted that the matters which were sub-judice were kept out of the insolvency resolution process. He has also referred to the list at page No. 87 of the counter-affidavit to submit that the claim under dispute pre corporate insolvency resolution process till 2nd April, 2018 has been enlisted therein and the name of the respondent appears at serial No. 7. 19. The learned counsel has also relied upon the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the main petition at page No. 125 to submit that so far as the dues in connection with operational creditors are concerned, the same was to be reconsidered and therefore, it cannot be said that the claim of such creditors stood nullified finally. The resolution plan with respect to NIL payment to operational creditors did not become final. The learned counsel has finally referred to the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court dated 21.01.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 5908/2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgement reported in (2022) 2 SCC 290 (Vaishno Devi Construction v. Union of India), the rate of interest under the arbitral award was modified and it was at that stage that the appellant before the Supreme Court, who had an assignment, filed objections in the form of an application under Section 47 read with Order 22 Rules 1 2 CPC read with Sections 2(1)(g) and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The question before the Hon ble Supreme Court was as to whether at the threshold, the appellants objection could be rejected on the ground that they were assignees who acquired the rights prior to passing of the decree. It was held that the objection filed under section 47 of the C.P.C. filed before the executing court was maintainable. This judgement does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. 25. In the judgement reported in (2018) 18 SCC 165 (Kohinoor Transporters v. State of U.P.), the issue was as to whether the High Court was right in directing the appointment of a chartered accountant for the purpose of determining as to whether the decretal debt is to be marked as satisfied. It has been held that the High Court had acted in excess o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with one which is a nullity. Para 20 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted as under: 20. It is no longer res integra that an executing court can neither travel behind the decree nor sit in appeal over the same or pass any order jeopardising the rights to the parties thereunder. It is only in the limited cases where the decree is by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction or is a nullity that the same is rendered non est and is thus inexecutable. An erroneous decree cannot be equalled with one which is a nullity. There are no intervening developments as well to render the decree unexecutable. It has been further held that the scrutiny is limited to objections to its executability on the ground of jurisdictional infirmity or voidness and the judgement reported in (1970) 1 SCC 670 was referred to say, that in essence, the law is that only a decree which is a nullity can be subject matter of objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not one which is erroneous either in law or in facts. Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the aforesaid judgement reported in (2017) 5 SCC 371 (Brakewel Automotive Components (India) (P) Ltd. v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan) is quoted as u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allow objection to the executability of the decree if it is found that the same is void ab initio and is a nullity, apart from the ground that it is not capable of execution under the law, either because the same was passed in ignorance of such provision of law or the law was promulgated making a decree unexecutable after its passing. None of the above eventualities as recognised in law for rendering a decree unexecutable, exists in the case in hand. For obvious reasons, we do not wish to burden this adjudication by multiplying the decisions favouring the same view. In the earlier judgement referred to and quoted in the aforesaid judgement in para 22 above, it has been explained as to when a decree is a nullity and certain instances have been given including where it is passed without bringing the legal representative on the record of a person who was dead at the date of the decree. On the point of objection to execution of decree suffering from inherent lack of jurisdiction, it has been held that objection as to its validity may be raised in an execution proceeding if such objection appears on the face of the record. It has also been held that where the objection as to the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompletely different footing and would be governed by the principles laid down by the judgement passed in the case of (2017) 5 SCC 371 (Brakewel Automotive Components (India) (P) Ltd. v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan). 29. In the judgement reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Delhi 7684 , it has been held that applicability of Section 47 of the CPC in execution proceedings in execution of arbitral awards cannot be excluded. Para 18 of the said judgment is quoted as under: 18. In my view, the observations MSP Infrastructure Ltd. and Bharti Cellular Ltd. supra to the effect that the judgments of civil law would not apply to a proceeding under special law as the Arbitration Act, apply to only the proceedings provided for under the Arbitration Act and cannot be extended to the proceedings for execution of an Arbitral Award, as if it were a decree of the Court. Once the Arbitration Act, 1996 itself has conferred on the Arbitral Award the status of a decree of the Civil Court and made the same executable in accordance with the provisions of CPC, I see no reason to apply the aforesaid observations made in an entirely different context i.e., to execution proceedings. To interpret so would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n objection that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and its decree was a nullity. The court executing the decree and the Court of Small Causes rejected the contention. The High Court reversed the order of the Court of Small Causes and dismissed the petition for execution. On appeal to this Court, a three judge Bench of this Court, reversed the judgment of the High Court and held thus 6. A court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree : between the parties or their representatives it must take the decree according to its tenor, and cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts. Until it is set aside by an appropriate proceeding in appeal or revision, a decree even if it be erroneous is still binding between the parties. 8. If the decree is on the face of the record without jurisdiction and the question does not relate to the territorial jurisdiction or under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to make the decree may be raised; where it is necessary to investigate facts in order to determine whether the court which had passed the decree had no jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utter disregard to the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34 of the Act of 1996 will not apply. The Hon ble Supreme Court refused to reject the appeal only on the ground that appellant had not availed the remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Para 13 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted as under: 13. The order dated 06.08.2012 is a nullity and runs contrary not only to the provisions of MSMED Act but contrary to various mandatory provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The order dated 06.08.2012 is patently illegal. There is no arbitral award in the eye of law. It is true that under the scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 an arbitral award can only be questioned by way of application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. At the same time when an order is passed without recourse to arbitration and in utter disregard to the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34 of the said Act will not apply. We cannot reject this appeal only on the ground that appellant has not availed the remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the face of record and the jurisdiction error goes to the root of the matter and is apparent on the face of the records. The moment such plea of nullity requires deliberations on fact and law, such objection is not permissible at the stage of execution of award. This Court is also of the considered view that such plea of nullity on the ground of jurisdiction should be of such a grave nature that it is not even capable of being waived by one or the other party. 35. This court is of the considered view that having not challenged the arbitral award under section 34 of the Act of 1996, the law does not contemplate second opportunity to challenge the award particularly when the Act of 1996 is a self-contained code which prescribes the specific grounds and specific mode of challenge to an arbitral award. This would be the position except under the circumstances, where the award cannot be termed as an award in the eyes of law and therefore it is required to be rendered void ab initio /nullity and consequently required to be declared non-est in the eyes of law. This can be done pursuant to such objection raised under section 47 of CPC at the stage of execution of the award. Awar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 on the principal amount of the bill with a direction to pay interest. It is interesting to note that the principal amount for which the award has been passed stood admitted even in the resolution plan. The bone of contention is that whether the realisable value was declared to be NIL in terms of the resolution plan read with the orders passed by NCLT/NCLAT/Supreme Court arising out of the proceedings under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). 38. This Court is of the considered view that the point as to whether the realisable value with respect to one or the other creditor was nil or otherwise certainly require close examination of the resolution plan read with the orders passed by NCLT/NCLAT/Supreme Court which itself is a debatable issue on facts as well as on law. In view of the aforesaid situation and in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case, the arbitral proceedings culminating in the award involved in this case, cannot be said to be suffering from inherent lack of jurisdiction. 39. On the point of jurisdiction, it has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier an arbitrator wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouncil proceeded, which led to passing of the final award involved in the present case. Ultimately the Calcutta High Court vide order dated 10.09.2018 (Annexure-C) having found that the Facilitation Council has passed the award under section 18 of the MSME Act of 2006 held that the petition before the high court had become academic ; section 14 proceedings before the learned court at Alipore had become infructuous and disposed of the civil revision application leaving the parties free to urge whatever grounds may be available to the parties before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 41. Upon perusal of the proceedings of the facilitation council, this court finds that the petitioner had submitted before the facilitating council that the order of the facilitation council on the point of jurisdiction which was decided against the petitioner was challenged before the District Court at Alipore but the petitioner never produced the ad-interim order before the Facilitation Council. Otherwise also, the order of stay passed by the District Court at Alipore has no impact due to the interim order as well as the final order passed by Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the civil re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money and includes Operational Debt [Section 521)] - means a claim in respect of the provision of goods or services including employment or a debt in respect of the [payment] of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State government or any local authority Financial Creditor [Section 5 (7)] - means any person to whom a financial debt is owed and includes a person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred to; Operational Creditor [Section 5 (20] - means a person to whom an operational debt is owed and includes any person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred The Hon ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Innoventive Industries Limited (supra) has compared the provisions of initiation of Corporation Insolvency Resolution Process by financial creditor under Section 7 and Insolvency Resolution Process by operational creditor under Section 8. The Hon ble Supreme Court at paragraph 27 to 30 of the said judgment has he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Rule 4(3), the applicant is to dispatch a copy of the application filed with the adjudicating authority by registered post or speed post to the registered office of the corporate debtor. The speed, within which the adjudicating authority is to ascertain the existence of a default from the records of the information utility or on the basis of evidence furnished by the financial creditor, is important. This it must do within 14 days of the receipt of the application. It is at the stage of Section 7(5), where the adjudicating authority is to be satisfied that a default has occurred, that the corporate debtor is entitled to point out that a default has not occurred in the sense that the debt , which may also include a disputed claim, is not due. A debt may not be due if it is not payable in law or in fact. The moment the adjudicating authority is satisfied that a default has occurred, the application must be admitted unless it is incomplete, in which case it may give notice to the applicant to rectify the defect within 7 days of receipt of a notice from the adjudicating authority. Under sub-section (7), the adjudicating authority shall then communicate the order passed to the fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore their claim was subsequently not maintainable and stood extinguished. Similar is the position with regards to the judgement reported in (2022) 6 SCC 343-Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. In the judgement of Ghanshyam Mishra (supra) the scheme of the IBC has been considered and summarized in para 93 and the reference has been answered in para 102 as under:- 93. As discussed hereinabove, one of the principal objects of the I B Code is providing for revival of the corporate debtor and to make it a going concern. The I B Code is a complete Code in itself. Upon admission of petition under Section 7 there are various important duties and functions entrusted to RP and CoC. RP is required to issue a publication inviting claims from all the stakeholders. He is required to collate the said information and submit necessary details in the information memorandum. The resolution applicants submit their plans on the basis of the details provided in the information memorandum. The resolution plans undergo deep scrutiny by RP as well as CoC. In the negotiations that may be held between CoC and the resolution applicant, various modifications may be made so as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... teel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors v. Satish Kumar Gupta has considered the fact that the decision of the committee of creditors has prime importance considering their commercial wisdom. Para 64 of the judgement is quoted as under:- 64. Thus, what is left to the majority decision of the Committee of Creditors is the feasibility and viability of a resolution plan, which obviously takes into account all aspects of the plan, including the manner of distribution of funds among the various classes of creditors. As an example, take the case of a resolution plan which does not provide for payment of electricity dues. It is certainly open to the Committee of Creditors to suggest a modification to the prospective resolution applicant to the effect that such dues ought to be paid in full, so that the carrying on of the business of the corporate debtor does not become impossible for want of a most basic and essential element for the carrying on of such business, namely, electricity. This may, in turn, be accepted by the resolution applicant with a consequent modification as to distribution of funds, payment being provided to a certain type of operational creditor, namely, the elec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the operational creditors are given priority in payment over all financial creditors does not lead to the conclusion that such payment must necessarily be the same recovery percentage as financial creditors. So long as the provisions of the Code and the Regulations have been met, it is the commercial wisdom of the requisite majority of the Committee of Creditors which is to negotiate and accept a resolution plan, which may involve differential payment to different classes of creditors, together with negotiating with a prospective resolution applicant for better or different terms which may also involve differences in distribution of amounts between different classes of creditors. 49. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any such provision in IBC that the claims of all such persons will stand at NIL once they fall within the definition of operational creditor as defined under IBC. Rather, extensive arguments have been advanced on the approved resolution plan by both the parties. 50. This issue requires consideration of the point as to whether the amount claimed by the respondent and pending for adjudication in the arbitral proceedings much prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al proceedings before the facilitation council resumed and notices were issued to the parties for participating in the arbitral proceedings and ultimately arbitral award dated 06.07.2018 was passed by referring to section 31 of the Act of 1996 as the petitioner did not contest the claim on merits. The facilitation council directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,59,09,214/- along with interest in terms of Section 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006 to the instance of the respondent- claimant/decree holder. (x) The arbitral award was not challenged under section 34 of the Act of 1996. (xi) At the stage of execution of the award, a petition was filed without giving the provision of law, but was referrable to section 47 of the CPC, alleging that the arbitral award was a nullity and hence not executable interalia on the ground that the claim of the respondent (decree holder) was already settled at NIL as per the resolution plan read with the various order of NCLT/NCLAT/Supreme Court and therefore nothing was payable to the respondent. 52. It is the case of the petitioner that on 29.03.2018, Resolution Plan was submitted by Vedanta Limited wherein at para 3.8 all claim of operat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or stakeholders of the Company ,including dues to employees (other than workmen), government dues, taxes, etc. and other creditors and stakeholders) is NIL and therefore, they will not be entitled to receive any payment. The para is quoted as under: - (v) Further, while the Liquidation Value of the Company is INR 2,899.98 Cr, the Admitted Debt for Financial Creditors aggregates to approximately INR 13,395.25 Cr. Accordingly, the Liquidation Value is not sufficient to cover debt of the Financial Creditors of the Company in full. Therefore, the Liquidation Value of the Operational Creditors or the other creditors or stakeholders of the Company (including dues to employees (other than workmen), government dues, taxes, etc. and other creditors and stakeholders) is NIL and therefore, they will not be entitled to receive any payment. The Dissenting Financial Creditors will be entitled to receive 21.65% of the value of their Admitted Debt ( Priority Payment ) which will be paid in priority to any payments to the assenting Financial Creditors. Clause 3.2(xii) of the resolution plan provided as follows:- (xii) Notwithstanding the above, upon the approval of the Resolution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esolution plan specifically deals with Treatment of amounts claimed under ongoing litigations. It is quoted as under :- 3.8 Treatment of amounts claimed under ongoing litigations: All Claims arising out of inquiries, investigations, notices, causes of action, suits, claims, disputes, litigation, arbitration or other judicial, regulatory or administrative proceedings against the Company or the affairs of the Company, pending or threatened, present or future and the proceedings (under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Top 30 Operational Creditor Claims and the Tax related Claims or liabilities specifically set out in Annexure 3 and Annexure 5) in relation to any period prior to the Effective Date or on account of acquisition of control by Vedanta and/or the SPV over the Company pursuant to this Resolution Plan, shall be settled at NIL value at par with the treatment accorded to the Operational Creditors of the Company as set out in Section 3.4.ii of the Resolution Plan. Annexure-3 of the resolution plan was giving the list of contingent liabilities of the company which has two columns i.e direct tax litigation and indirect tax litigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.626 4. Sai Infra Motor Services Pvt Ltd 5.626 5. A.R. Services Pvt Ltd 1.066 6. JRL Mining Pvt Ltd 3.482 7. O.K. Movers Minerals Pvt. Ltd 4.673 8. Orissa Bengal Carrier Ltd 0.237 9. Usha Carriers Private Limited 0.651 10. Orient Refractories Ltd 0.889 11. Praxair India Pvt Limited 2.664 12. Globe Ecologistics Pvt Ltd 0.546 13. Union Roadways Limited 0.390 14. Visakha Industrial Gases Pvt Ltd 3.413 15. S.P. Enterprises 2.910 16. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ronounce the arbitral award on account of approval of the insolvency resolution plan of the petitioner under section 31 of the IBC. This is on account of the reason that the arbitral proceedings were initiated prior to insolvency resolution date, suspended during the moratorium period, resumed upon expiry of the moratorium period and the approved resolution plan did not determine the claim of the respondent as nil whose pending litigation before the west Bengal facilitation council was taken note of in the resolution plan. The point no (c) is accordingly decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. No need to enter into the issue as to whether MSME Act will prevail order the IBC. 59. Judgement reported in (2020) 3 SCC 210-Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. deals with the issue as to whether MSME Act has overriding effect on IBC and it has been held that there is no conflict between MSME Act and IBC. In the present case, this court need not deal with the issue as to whether IBC Act will have over-riding effect on MSME Act in view of the fact that there is no occasion to decide this issue as the approved resolution plan n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter raised by the Judgment debtor in its application dated 14.05.2019 will not be heard in this case. It clearly shows that the Judgment debtor seeks to deprive the decree holder of the fruits of the award and wants to keep case pending unnecessarily and also not mention any tenable ground in its application. Hence, on the basis of above-mentioned facts and circumstances of this case and perused the materials available on records, this court find no merit in the application filed by the Judgment debtor dated 14.05.2019. Having gone through the authorities of law relied by the learned counsel for the Judgment debtor, this court finds that the fact of those cases before the Hon ble Supreme Court and Hon ble High Court are identically different from the present case in hand and not applied in Toto in this case. As such, these authorities of law appears not helpful for Judgment debtor. Therefore, the application filed by the Judgment debtor dated 14.05.2019 is hereby dismissed and Judgment debtor is directed to comply the order of award passed on 06.07.2018 by W.B.M.S.M.E. Facilitation Council, Kolkata under Section 31 of the Arbitration, Act, 1996 within 15 days from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
