IHC—78 ^ W^T ?)T'f^TW ^^T3T^T^HW 3'c^T ^fNi^^, ?$Tfi'y4i<s, ^^i-yy ^iWWl sb^lcb^.....y..f:.<s?. ..,4..^./......•^ 2005 3^?T ^S^ (^f^<{8T) 1^IT^R ^f^n 'SH^T PETmQNERS: 1. 2. - Versui - RESPONDENT: (Writ Petition under Artjclej Sinale Bench: Hon'bl 22.1.2008:- Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, coij Heard. <^Nf<1'iftl1 'HFRTf '^\'fetst iPsi^K ^T 3ff?R 3TT^T Gurujeet Singh Man, S/o Gurudayal Singh Man, Aged about 46 years, R/o Quarter No.1/C66, Bishrampur, District : Surugja, Chhattisgarh. Bakshi Singh, S/o Gurudayal Singh Man, ^ed about 52 years, R/o Quarter No.1/C66, Bishrampur, District Surugja, Chhattisgarh Magma Leasing Limrted, Magma House, Ground Floor, 24, Park Street,Koikata~700016. 227 ofthe Constitution of India) eMr.JustJceLC.Bhadoo nsel forthe petitioners. The petitioners have prefer|ed this writ petition under Arttcle 227 of the Constitution of India questionjing the legality and correctness of the order dated 27.12.2007 passed b^ rejected the objection filed by execution case is not maintainabl Chhattisgarh in M.Cr.C. No.2289 Chhattisgarh vide order dated 5.1 District Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur m Executron Case No.1/2006 wh^reby the leamed District Judge has |he petitioner herein holding that the ^ on the ground that the High Court of [2004; Gurjeet Singh IVIann v. State of |1.2004 observed that without obtaining :C—78 T^T ^Nl<^^, ^lfly^KS, R|01<rl^< '^ 'STT^T ^T ^jch 'cT^T 'STI^T sh^i^ 'WT^IT 5h^8<sh ^ 200 3^?r TR^ (^?^^) '^TT^R ^rf^r'sn^r —2.- ^ecree of thedvll Court the Mafima Leasingn-imjted is not entitted to realize installments. Vide impugn^d order the learned District Judge has obsen^ed that the order dated 5.11 Section 482 of the Code of Crimil Magistrate/Additional Sessions J^ Section 482 of the Cr.P.C the Hig^| that the vehicle was sold to the ^ hjm. Therefore, whether the finan) <^i^{<n^'i ^i^* ^'fe^ ^^K ^ ^tRm ^sn^r .2004 was passed in apptication uncter lal Procedure against the order of the Idge in whlch Jt was held that while releasjng of the vehicle, learned IV|agistrate was not authorized to Impose condition to the effect that the pet|tioner shall deposit the installments as per the agreement of loan which \^as taken by the petitioner for purchase ofjeep from Magma Leasing Limit^d. It is tme that while dispo^ing of the misc. criminal ease under Court at page 4 of the order observed ipplicant was sold by playjng fraud on se company was entitled to realize jts installments or not was to be d^cided by a competent court of civil jurisdiction and without having s|ny such adjudication the Magistrate, directing the applicant to pay the ir|stallments without having any authority as he was empowered to put orfrly those conditions by which he can ensure the safe custody and jts ^roduction as and when required, has certainly exceeded jurisdiction. It is admitted position that proceedings at Kolkata and they when the petitioners herein took loan from the respondents for purcha^e of the vehicle, an agreement was executed and based on that re^pondents had filed some arbitration obtained an arbitration award in their favour from the Arbitrator. Afte|' comjng into force Arbitration and Condliation Act, 1996 the award p^issed by the Arbitrator is equjvalent to a decree of the Civil Court. The ex|ecution proceeding was filed at Kolkata -"^-^^ '">v%.. ..f\,.^^ ^ -HC—78 W^[ ^T f^-lich ^f^T 3H^I sb^J<=h -ir 3^r ^i^i(^<t|, ^•Jl^t|<o, is(0|'(-f^< ^TO^T ^bNlck TFi, 200 3?T^?T ^i^F (^II^^T) '^TT^R ^rft^ <3?T^r -3- that has been transferred to District that execution, the petitioner hereij execution proceedings based on M.Cr.C.No.2289/2004 vide order petition question of realization of ir|sta High Court. The question was wh^ the case the Magistrate was entitl^d the installment is to be paid by the| case observed that Magistrate wa^ Beyond that any observation was respondent herein filed a arbitrati<j which award was passed against^he become a decree of the civil Couit learned District Judge has not error has been committed by h| petitioner herein was to get arbitr] appropriate forum. The petition dismissed and it is hereby dismiss^d. <^l^i<rt4tl °RFI?if^^c^ <fa^$K '^3?RR3:H^F Judge, Ambikapur for its execution. In ijn moved an application for staying the (he observation made by this Court in <|lated 5.11.2004. Even though, in said iristallments was not an issue before the ^ther in the facts and circumstances of to impose one of the condjtion that petitioner herein and thls Court in that not entitled to impose such condition. lot binding on the authorities even then >n proceeding against the petitioner in petitioner and that proceeding has and that is being executed, therefore, his jurisdiction and no jurisdictional |m. Proper remedy available to the i[ation award set aside by approaching misconceived same is liabte to be acc4ded Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge