:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1479 OF 2007 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 383 OF 2007 IN ARBITRATION REFERENCE NO. 246 OF 1997 Shri Amit Dave ...Applicant Versus M/s.Rakesh Kumar and Co. and Ors. ...Respondents ====== Mr.A.A.Mukhri i/by. Purohit and Co. Adv. for the plaintiffs. None for the Defendants CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 7TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The Applicant claims to be the Decree holder who has in his favour an Award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Reliance is placed upon Section 36 of the :2: :2: :2: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, so also, the fact that the challenge to the Award has failed and the Award is confirmed right upto the Appellate Court. In such circumstances, the Award has become executable and enforceable as a Decree of this court. 3. However, 2 years having been lapsed from the date of the Award and the Execution Application being pending, it is prayed that Leave under Order 21 Rule 22 be granted permitting the Applicant/Decree Holder to enforce the Award. Perused the Chamber Summons and the Affidavit-in-support. There is no reply Affidavit, although, the Respondents are served. 4. In the above circumstances, leave Under Order 21 Rule 22 of CPC is granted for executing the Decree as and against the First Defendant Firm. 5. Insofar as, other reliefs are concerned, all that can be directed at this stage, is that the Respondent no.1 against whom the execution proceedings are filed, shall comply with the requirements of Order 21 Rule 41 of the CPC and disclose on Affidavit the assets and :3: :3: :3: properties. 6. A relief has been claimed for issuance of leave and execution of the Decree against the partners who are Defendant nos.2 to 6 allegedly. Leave is sought under Order 21 Rule 50(2) of the CPC. 7. At this stage, it would not be fair, just and proper to grant this relief, inasmuch as, the Award having been passed more than 2 years back and leave under Order 21 Rule 22 being granted today, interest of justice would be subserved, if liberty is granted to the petitioner to apply for reliefs in terms of prayer clause (b) of the Chamber Summons. It is only upon leave being granted in terms of this prayer, that the petitioner would be at liberty to seek such directions as are permissible in law with regard to the individual assets and properties of the partners Respondent nos.2 to 6. At this stage, the Court cannot proceed on the basis that the Respondent nos.2 to 6 who are impleaded for the first time and not being parties to the arbitral proceedings are partners of the First Defendant Firm. :4: :4: :4: 8. In other words, the relief as granted by this Chamber Summons shall stand confined to the First Respondent and it will be the First Respondent who shall comply with the Mandate of Order 21 Rule 41 of the CPC in the first instance. Chamber Summons is made absolute in the above terms. sd/- *******