THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K S APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3442 OF 2011 DT.14.11.2011 Between: The Superintendent, Osmania Gen. Hospital, Hyd … Petitioner And Pragnya Software Systems Ltd and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Govt Pleader for Arbitration Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri D V Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K S APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3442 OF 2011 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V Eswaraiah) The petitioner herein is respondent/judgment debtor. The present revision is filed against the orders in E P No. 2 of 2009 in Award Case No. 38/1/07/02 dated 30.5.2011 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad directing the second respondent/Garnishee Bank to deposit the amount of Rs.44,95,615/- lying in the account of judgment debtor bearing No. 10112357406 into E.P. account. The facts in brief are that the first respondent herein filed a reference before The Andhra Pradesh Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Hyderabad (for short the Council) in Case No. 38/1/2007/02 against the revision petitioner herein stating that it has entered into an agreement with the revision petitioner/judgment debtor for supply of computers and their installations and training programme for the staff of all departments of Osamnia General Hospital for 103 lakhs and completed the said assignment in three phases. The revision petitioner-judgment debtor has paid Rs.29,60,000/- out of the invoice amount of Rs.29,74,400/- for first phase and Rs.44,49,600/- for invoice for second phase and has not paid the amount of Rs.31,10,016/- towards the invoice for third phase. Thus, the first respondent-claimant filed a reference before the Council. The case of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor before the Council is that substantial amounts relating to first and second phases were already paid and the amounts relating to third phase were not paid since the claimant has not completed the third phase. The Council on consideration of the matter has passed an award, which reads as under; 1. The respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.29,60,000/- (Rupees twenty nine lakhs sixty thousand only) towards balance payment of 3rd phase of computerization, within one month from the date of receipt of this award, failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay interest three times the prevailing bank rate of RBI compounded on monthly basis. 2. The claimant is directed to impart necessary training to the Ministerial staff and staff of Medical and Stores of the Hospital for a period of one month starting within one month as per convenience and mutual agreement between the petitioner and the respondent. Alleging non implementation of the award, the claimant /first respondent herein initiated execution proceedings in E.P. No. 2 of 2009 in Award Case No. 38/1/2007/02 dated 26.7.2008 on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The Court below on consideration of the matter, passed order dated 30.5.2011, which reads as under; “Under the circumstances stated above, the Garnishee Bank is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.44,95,615/- lying in the Account No. 10112357406 into E.P. account. For compliance call on 20.6.2011. As against the above order dated 30.5.2011, the present revision is filed by the judgment debtor/Osmania General Hospital, on the ground that the direction no.2 of the award dated 26.7.2008 i.e., imparting necessary training to the ministerial staff and staff of Medical and Stores of the Hospital for a period of one month shall be completed first and on such completion an obligation lies on the judgment debtor to comply the direction no.1 of the award i.e., payment of Rs.29,60,000/- (Rupees twenty nine lakhs sixty thousand only) towards balance payment of 3rd phase of computerization. The Court below did not find favour with such a contention of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor and passed order dated 30.5.2011 as stated supra. Hence, the revision petition. Admittedly the first respondent/claimant has completed the first and second phases of the contract and according to it, the third phase is also completed but the balance amount is not paid as such it has sought for a reference before the Council. The Council on consideration of the rival contentions, passed an award as stated supra. The learned counsel for first respondent/ claimant submitted that there was no meeting conducted between the parties so as to enable the first respondent/claimant to finalise the date to commence the training. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the first direction of Council as regards payment of Rs.29,60,000/- is unconditional and without reference to the compliance of the second direction and it cannot be linked up with the consequential direction given by the Council to impart training for one month. Further, the order of the Council did not prescribe a specific date for commencement of imparting training and it is specifically stated that the claimant shall impart training for a period of one month starting within one month as per convenience and mutual agreement. In such circumstances, the Executing Court has rightly held that the direction no.1 of the Council is independent and unconditional. The said order cannot be said to be illegal or irregular warranting interference of this Court. For the foregoing reasons the revision fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J ______________ K.S. APPA RAO,J DATE:14.11.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K S APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3442 OF 2011 DT.14.11.2011