IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 CRP.No. 434 of 2010() --------------------- EP.20/2008 of DISTRICT COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ------------------------------------ KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT/DECREEE HOLDER: ----------------------------- OMEGA CABLES LTD., 16 & 17 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, AMBATTUR, CHENNAI-58. ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.434 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 17th day of August, 2010 ORDER This revision arises from the order dated 14-06-2010 passed by learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in E.P.No.20 of 2008 in execution of arbitration award dated 07-02-2007. Respondent is executing the award. As per that award petitioner is to pay respondent the amount found due by the arbitrators towards unpaid bills and price variation. Arbitrators directed petitioner to pay Rs.14,86,337/- under claim No.1 and Rs.13.46,290/- under claim No.3 with interest. Petitioner objected to execution of the award on the ground that as per clause 25 of the award respondent has to supply 71kms of conductor @98,200/- per km but, respondent has not so far supplied the said conductor and hence respondent is not entitled to execute the award. Learned District Judge found that there is no reciprocity in the matter, directions in the award are not interdependent and hence respondent is entitled to realise the amount due to them as per the award. That order is under challenge at the instance of petitioner/judgment debtor. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner contended that a C.R.P.No.434 of 2010 : 2 : reading of the award shows that it is reciprocal to petitioner paying the amount directed in the award that respondent has to supply 71 kms of conductor for the rate above stated and hence without complying with the obligation cast on respondent, it is not entitled to execute that part of the award in its favour. It is also pointed out by learned Senior Advocate that petitioner has filed E.P.No.196 of 2010 in the court of learned District Judge to execute the direction contained in clause 25 of the award regarding supply of 71kms of conductor. Learned Senior Advocate argues that if respondent did not supply 71kms of conductor at the rate specified by arbitrators, petitioner may have to purchase the same from elsewhere and suffer loss. Learned counsel for respondents contend that directions in the award are not reciprocal whatever be the entitlement of petitioner as per clause 25 of the award. Learned counsel contends that there is no obligation cast on respondent to supply 71 kms of conductor and it is only that they are at liberty to supply 71kms of conductor for the price stated by arbitrators. 2. It is not disputed that execution petition filed by petitioner is pending consideration before the learned District Judge. Question whether petitioner is entitled to execute direction in clause 25 of the award is a different matter. But, on going through the order under challenge and hearing learned C.R.P.No.434 of 2010 : 3 : counsel I do not find any reciprocity in the matter. I am also not able to find that payment of amount awarded to the respondent is dependant on respondent supplying 71kms of conductor at the rate suggested by the arbitrators. Hence, respondent is entitled to get the amount awarded and regarding which E.P.No.20 of 2008 was filed. However, question whether petitioner is entitled to execute direction contained in clause 25 of the award as sought for in E.P.No.196 of 2010 is a matter which learned District Judge has to consider in that proceeding. I make it clear that the observations if any made in the order under challenge and in this judgment shall not in anyway affect right of petitioner to proceed with E.P.No.196 of 2010 in the way they have claimed provided award enabled them to do so. 3. Learned Senior Advocate requested that petitioner may be granted a months' time to deposit the amount due as per order in E.P.No.20 of 2008. Having considered the request, I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly this revision petition is disposed of in the following lines: (i) Petitioner is granted a months' time from this day to deposit the amount payable to respondent as per the award and as prayed for in E.P.No.20 of 2008 of the court of learned District C.R.P.No.434 of 2010 : 4 : Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. (ii) It is made clear that observation contained in the impugned order or in this judgment will not affect right of petitioner to proceed with E.P.No.196 of 2010 in case petitioner is otherwise entitled to execute the direction contained in the award as prayed for in that petition. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-