PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. versus M/S ATWAL RLCE & GENERAL MILLS REP. BY ITS

Citation: [2017] 8 S.C.R. 198 · Decided: 11-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017]8 S.C.R.198 
A 
PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. & 
B 
ANR. 
v. 
MIS ATWAL RlCE & GENERAL MILLS REP. BY ITS 
PARTNERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 8943 of2017) 
JULYll,2017 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.I 
C 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - ss. 35 and 36 -
Dispute between the parties - Money award passed by the arbitrator. 
attained finality - Execution petition by the decree holder uls. 36 
for enforcement of the award against judgment debtor - Dismissal 
of. by the executing court upholding the objections raised by the 
judgment debtor against the award - Said order upheld by the High 
D Court - On appeal, held: Both the courts-execution court and the 
High Court neither set out the facts much less properly nor dealt 
the issues arising in the case and nor applied the principle of law -
Orders showed the total non-application of mind thus, wholly 
perverse, illegal and without jurisdiction - Courts below did not 
E decide any of the objections raised by the judgment debtor. in fact, 
they were not even referred to in the orders - More so, having regard 
to the nature of objections, they were not capable of being tried in 
execution proceedings to challenge the award - Objections were 
not in relation to the jurisdiction of the court - inquiry into facts, 
could not be held in execution proceedings in relation to such 
F award/decree - Thus, the objections rejected being wholly devoid 
of any merits - Further. no amount was paid by judgment debtor to 
the decree holder pursuant to the award/decree so as to enable the 
executing court to record its full satisfaction in accordance with the 
provisions of 0. 21 rr. 1 and 2 - Thus, the execution application 
G flied by decree holder for execution of the award/decree was 
maintainable - Order passed by the High Court and the executing 
court set aside - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 21 rr. 1 and 2. 
H 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- 0. 21 rr. I and 2 - Payment 
of decreta/ dues by the judgment debtor - Mandatory requirements -
Stated. 
198 
PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP. LTD. v. MIS ATWAL 
199 
RICE & GENERAL MILLS REP. BY ITS PARTNERS 
Execution petition - Execution of decree by execution A. 
court - Held: Execution court has· to execute the decree as it is and 
it cannot go behind the decree - Also, executing court cannot hold 
any kind of factual inquiry which may have the effect of nullifying 
the decree itself but it can undertake limited inquhy regarding 
jurisdictional issues. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The executing Court has to execute the decree 
as it is and it cannot go behind the decree. Likewise, the executing 
Court cannot hold any kind of factual inquiry which may have the 
effect of nullifying the decree itself but it can undertake limited c 
inquiry regarding jurisdictional issues which goes to the root of 
the decree and has the effect of rendering the decree nullity. 
[Para 21] [206-A-B] 
1.2 The executing Court did not decide any of the objections 
set out but confined its inquiry to one statement of accounts filed 
D 
by the respondents, which according to them, was given to them 
by the appellant. The executing Court, on perusal of the. account 
statement, held that a sum of Rs.3,37,885/- was paid by the 
respondents to the appellant on 29.08.2011 which, as per the 
statement, was credited in appellant's account and hence such 
payment having been made has resulted in fully satisfying the E 
decree in question and, therefore, the respondents are not liable 
to pay any amount towards decree in question. It is essentially 
with this factual finding, the executing Court came to a conclusion 
that the award/decree stood fully satisfied and hence no recovery 
of any awarded amount can be made and, therefore, dismissed 
F 
the appellant's execution application. The said finding of the 
executing court was upheld by the High Court. [Paras 25, 261 
[206-H; 207-A-C] 
1.3 The executing Court and the High Court either did not . 
understand the controversy or if understood, miserab~y failed to 
G 
decide the same in accordance with law. Indeed, both the orders 
clearly show the total non-application of mind by the two Courts 
because both the Courts neither set out the facts much less 
properly nor dealt the issues arising in the case and nor applied 
the principle of law which governs the controversy. Both the 
orders are, therefore, wholly perverse, illegal and without H 
200 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.