IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.12845/2014(GM-RES) AND WRIT PETITION No.13052/2014 BETWEEN:
SRI. YOGESH N M S/O NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS AGRICULTURIST THURCHAGATTA VILLAGE BELAVANUR POST DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT- 577 002 (BY SRI. S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADV.) AND ... PETITIONER 1. M/S. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE 2ND CROSS, #29/A,K H ROAD BANGALORE-560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS P.A HOLDER SRI HANUMANTHAPPA G R S/O S G RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS NO.129/1,SKV’S PRIDE 2ND FLOOR,OPP. BILAL COMPOUND P.B ROAD,DAVANAGERE-577 002 2. SRI MAHADEVAPPA B G S/O GANGAPPA R/O BASAVAPURA THURCHAGATTA VILLAGE BELAVANUR POST DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT- 577 002 (BY SRI. M J ALVA, ADV. FOR R1, R2-NOTICE IS DISPESED WITH V/O DTD:19.03.2015 ) ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ANN-A DT.6.11.13, & 7.12.13 MADE IN EX.CASE NO.151/12 BY THE COURT OF PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE AND GRANT INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE ATTACHMENT ORDER ANN-A, DT.7.12.13, & ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN EX.CASE NO.151/12, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE DAVANAGERE.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is directed against the order dated 6.11.2013 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Execution Case No.151/2012 vide Annexure-A.
2. The brief facts of the case:
The petitioner has availed finance from respondent No.1-Finance Company for the purpose of purchasing TATA HGV bearing Registration No.KA-17- A-6570. Since, the petitioner had failed to repay the loan amount, the respondent No.1 had initiated arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Case No.113/2011 before the sole Arbitrator, who had conducted the proceedings at his office in chennai, Tamilnadu State. The award was passed in the said proceedings on 3.10.2011. Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed an execution case under Order 21 Rule 11 of CPC before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Execution Case No.115/2012. The petitioner had filed objections to the said execution case and contended that the execution case filed by the respondent No.1 before the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, is not maintainable. The executing Court has over-ruled the objections of the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 6.11.2013. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of N.Nagaraj v. M/s.Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. in W.P.Nos.38220-221/2010 and connected cases disposed of on 27.6.2012 to contend that since the arbitration proceedings was held in Chennai, the execution case filed before the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere is not maintainable. Without considering this aspect of the matter, the Principal District and Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Limited vs. Abdul Samad and another [2018(4) SCJ 315] and submits that enforcement of an award through its execution can be filed anywhere in the country.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. The petitioner has taken finance from respondent No.1 for the purpose of purchasing TATA HGV vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-17-A-6570. Since, the petitioner had failed to repay the amount, the respondent No.1 had initiated arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Case No.113/2011 before the sole Arbitrator, who had conducted the proceedings at his office in Chennai, Tamilnadu State.
The award was passed in the said proceedings on 3.10.2011. Thereafter, the respondent filed execution case before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Execution Case No.115/2012. The executing Court passed the impugned order on 6.11.2013 vide Annexure-A.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (stated supra) in paragraph 22 has clearly held that the enforcement of an award through its execution can be filed anywhere in the country. The paragraph 22 is extracted hereunder:
“22. We are, thus, unhesitatingly of the view that the enforcement of an award through its execution can be filed anywhere in the country where such decree can be executed and there is no requirement for obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court, which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings."
8. In view of the decision laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (stated supra), the execution case filed by respondent No.1 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, in Execution Case No.151/2012, is maintainable. Hence, I am declined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the executing Court.
9. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE DM