N.R. CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. versus SRI RAM BADAN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 792 · Decided: 09-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE, P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
N.R. CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. 
v. 
SRI RAM BADAN SINGH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 9, 2007 
[TAR UN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure,· 1908-0. XX!, rr. 18 and 19-
Applicability of-To adjustment of cross award-Held, rr 18 and 19 
C not applicable since application was in respect of two awards in the 
same arbitration case-It was not for execution of cross-decrees in 
separate suits for payment of money in between the parties or for 
execution qf a decree under which two parties are entitled to recover 
sums of nioney-Also objection petition regarding interim award and 
D final award dismissed by Courts below including Supreme Court. 
E 
The Question which arose for consideration in this appeal was 
whether the provisions ofOrd'er XX.I Rules18and19 of the Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908 are applicable in case of adjustment of the 
cross-award as claimed by the appellant. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. From a bare reading of the Rules 18 and 19 of 
Order XX.I of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is clear that Rule 18 
is applicable in the case where the applications are made to the Court 
F for execution of the cross-decrees in separate suits for payment of 
two sums of money passed between the same parties and Rule 19 is 
applicable in the case where the application is made to the Court 
for the execution of a decree under Which two parties are entitled 
to recover sums of money. In the instant case, High Court rightly 
G observed that neither the application has been made for execution 
of cross-decrees in separate suits for the payment of money in 
between the parties nor the application is for execution of a decree 
in which the parties are entitled to recover sums of money from each 
H 
792 
--
~ 
N.R.CONSTRUCTIONSPVT.LTD. v. SRIRAMBADAN 
793 
SINGH [P. SATHASIVAM,J.] 
other. The particulars furnished clearly show that the applications A 
were in respect of two awards in the same arbitration case and as 
such the provisions of Rules 18and19 of Order XX.I ofC.P.C. are 
not applicable. [Para 9] [797-A, B, C, D] 
1.2. It is also relevant to mention that in the Objection Petition 
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the B 
issue regarding interim award and final award came up for 
consideration before the subordinate Court which was dismissed and 
the appeal filed also met the same result at the hands of the High 
Court. This Court also confirmed the order of the High Court except 
in the rate of interest. In the light of these materials and earlier C 
orders including this Court and various clauses in the awards dated 
19.04.1997 and 25.11.2000, subordinate Judge rejected the petition 
filed by the appellant. High Court by the impugned order accepted 
the said factual conclusion and dismissed the Revision. In view of 
the conclusion based on the factual details furnished in both the D 
execution cases, the conclusions of the Courts below are concurred 
with. [Paras 9and10] [797-D, E, F, G] 
~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4737 of 
2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2006 of the High 
Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in C.R. No. 65 of2006. 
Dr. R.G. Padia, Abhishek Singh and Praveen Agrawal for the 
Appellant. 
· 
Bhaskar P. Gupta, Ashish Verma, K. Datta and K.V. Mohan for 
the Respondents. · 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P. SA THASIV AM, J. 1. Leave granted. 
E 
F 
G 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.07.2006 
passed by the High CoUit of Jharkhand at Ranchi in C.R. No.65 of2006 
whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the Civil Revision filed by the 
appellant herein against the order dated 28.06.2006 passed by the H 
794 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A Subordinate Judge-I, Bokaro in Execution Case No. 2 of2001 rejecting 
-\ 
the appellant's prayer for adjustment of the cross-award under the 
provisions of Order XXI Rules 18 and 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
3. The only question, inter alia, arises in this appeal is whethe(the 
provisions of Order XXI Rules 18 and 19 of the C.P.C. are applicable 
B in case of adjustment of the cross-award as claimed by the c:i.ppellant 
herein? 
4. The appellant entered into a partnership with the respondents and 
a partnership deed was executed on 14.04.1992. The purpose of the 
c partnership was for completion of certain contract work which the 
appellant had obtained. One of the terms of the agreement provided for 
arbitration, i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.