IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 34277 of 2008(E) ------------------------------------ OPARB.17/1988 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- WESTERN INDIA COTTONS LTD. PAPPINISSERRY, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P(c) No. 34277 of 2008 ---------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner K.S.E.B filed this petition against the order in E.P.No.216 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Addl. Sub Judge, Thalassery. That E.P was filed for the execution of Arbitration award in O.P(Arb.) No.17 of 1988, wherein the petitioner-board was found liable to pay certain amounts to the respondents/decree holder as claimed. It is submitted by the counsel for petitioner that the award amount is Rs.22,41,010/- and including the interest due there on and costs, the total amount due to the decree holder as per execution petition is Rs.44,92,383/-. He submits that the petitioner-board has filed an application to set off the amount due to them under various electricity bills from the decree holder. It was not something provided under the award or agreed to by the decree holder. Execution court disallowed the set off claimed. It does not appear that the electricity dues claimed is admitted by the decree holder/respondent. The W.P(c) No. 34277/ 2008 2 execution court cannot be found fault with for rejecting the request of the petitioner Board to set off the amount due to them by way of electricity charges from the decree holder against the award amount due to the decree holder. Though there is a prayer to set aside the order dated 22/09/2008 in E.A. No. 754 of 2008 in E.P. No.216 of 2004, it is not discernable as to which is the order dated 22/09/2008 in E.A. No.754 of 2008. The Counsel for the petitioner asserts that Exhibit P4 is the order on E.A. 754 of 2008. Therein, I do not see any E.A. Number. It is not discernable from the written copy of the order produced as Exhibit P4 as to what is that order; on which petition it is passed and it is not readable either. When the counsel for the decree holder is asked to read, he is also unable to read that. In the circumstances, request to set aside the order dated 22/09/2008 in E.A. No.754 of 2008 in E.P. No.216 of 2004 cannot be allowed. There is no reason also to stay further proceedings in execution as prayed for. If at all any amount is due to the petitioner- Board by way of electricity charges, they may recover it otherwise and it is not for them to claim set off of that amount as against the award amount sought to be realised W.P(c) No. 34277/ 2008 3 from them by execution of the award. This writ petition is devoid of merit. In the result, I dismiss this writ petition. K.P. BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE