M/S KOHINOOR TRANSPORTERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 22 · Decided: 21-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
22
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
M/S KOHINOOR TRANSPORTERS
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(Civil Appeal No. 8338 of  2018)
AUGUST 21, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
s.47 – Money decree – Execution proceedings – Both the
parties filed their respective statements of calculations in regard to
the amount due under the decree of the Court – Executing Court
rejected the objections filed by respondent – Revision by respondent
– High Court directed the appointment of Chartered Accountant to
consider the details of arrears – Held:  High Court acted in manifest
excess of its jurisdiction while directing the appointment of a
Chartered Accountant for the purpose of determining as to whether
the decretal debt is to be marked as satisfied – The execution
proceeding is pending before the Civil Judge and  various orders
have been passed thereon from time to time – The issue as to whether
the decree has been discharged or satisfied has to be determined
by the Executing Court under s.47. CPC – The Executing Court
must execute the decree as it stands, without adding anything to it –
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, the
contention of the appellant that there was an admission in regard to
the balance of Rs 1.25 crores is sought to be controverted – All
these are matters which must properly be addressed in the course of
the execution proceedings – The High Court has acted in excess of
jurisdiction by directing the appointment of a Chartered Accountant,
particularly at this stage – The impugned order of the High Court is
set aside – Having regard to the fact that the dispute between the
parties arose out of a contract of 1980 and an award of 1984 which
is still being executed, the High Court to dispose of the Civil Revision
expeditiously.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal No. 8338
of 2018.
 [2018] 10 S.C.R. 22
  22
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
23
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2017 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in CLR No.147 of 2016.
Abhay Kumar, Saurabh Mishra, Himanshu Pal Singh, Mukul
Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Charu Singhal, Vikas Chaudhary, Advs. for
the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. An arbitral proceeding took
place between the appellant and the respondent under the Arbitration
Act 1940. The disputes originated in a contract of 1980 for certain civil
works and eventually resulted in an arbitral award dated 20 July 1984.
The award was made a Rule of the Court on 30 August 1986 by the
Civil Judge, Dehradun.  The award has attained finality after the High
Court of Uttaranchal dismissed an appeal filed by the State on 15
December 2006. The Civil Judge, it may be noted, reduced the rate of
interest from 12 per cent to 6 per cent.
2. The appellant filed an application for execution before the
Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, being Execution Application 27/2010.
During the course of the execution proceedings, the respondent-state
deposited an amount of Rs 75,65,945 towards the decretal debt.  In the
course of the execution proceedings the appellant and the state filed
their respective statements of calculation in regard to the amount due
under the decree of the Court. On 6 April 2015, the Executing
Courtdirected the respondent to deposit an amount of
Rs 1,25,16,969.56 stating that it is‘admitted’. Notice was issued to the
respondent under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC to which it filed its objections.
On 16 August 2016, the Executing Court rejected the objections on the
ground that the amount of Rs 1.25 crores was admitted, as evident from
the earlier order dated 6 April 2015.  A Civil Revision Application was
filed by the respondent against the order of the Executing court.  During
the course of the execution proceedings an order was passed on 3 August
2017 directing the judgment debtor to  comply with the earlier order of 6
April 2015, failing which, it was observed “they shall be deemed to be
penheld”. After this order of the Executing Court, a stay application was
moved in the revisional proceedings before the High Court by the State.
The High Court by its impugned order directed the appointment of a
Chartered Accountant in the following terms:
M/S KOHINOOR TRANSPORTERS v. STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
24
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
“..So, I think that notwithstanding the absence of any prayer
regarding the appointment of compe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.