IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 16777 OF 2010(O) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/02/2010 IN EA 79/2009 IN EP 36/2008 IN OPARB.113/2006 OF I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- J.A.BENEDICT,S/O.JEROME FERNANDEZ, VAYALIL THOPPIL HOUSE,NEENDARAKARA,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE,(A DIVISION OF INDUSIND BANK LTD),SUDARSAN BUILDING NO.92(OLD NO 86),CHAMIERS ROAD,CHENNAI. 2. SRI.D.SARAVANAN,ARBITRATOR/ADVOCATE NO.346,(OLD NO.161),IST FLOOR,THAMBU CHETTY STREET,OPPOSITE HIGH COURT,CHENNAI-01. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.16777 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 01st day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Writ petitioner is facing execution in the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Kollam of an arbitral award passed by respondent No.2. Notice under Order 21 Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) was issued to the petitioner alleging that in spite of having sufficient means he has wilfully failed to pay the debt. Petitioner filed Ext.P2, application in the executing court for the issue of a copy of arbitration award and other documents relating to the said award. Vide Ext.P4, order executing court rejected that application holding that there is no obligation on the executing court to give copy of the award and other documents applied for. The executing court observed that petitioner could obtain copy of the award as provided under law and that he has to file his objection if any on the notice served on him under Order 21 Rule 37 of the Code. With that observation Ext.P2, application was disposed of. That order is under challenge in this proceeding. Learned counsel invited my attention to Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short, “the Act”) which mandates that after the arbitral W.P.C. No.16777 of 2010 -: 2 :- award is made a signed copy of the award shall be delivered to each party. Learned counsel also invited my attention to decision of the apex court in Union of India Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors (2005(4) SCC 239) where in paragraph 8 it is stated that delivery of arbitral award under Section 31(5) is not a matter of mere formality and that it is a matter of substance. It is also the contention of learned counsel that subsequent to Ext.P4, order petitioner has preferred Ext.P3, objection to the executability of the award on the ground that it is not duly stamped and that the said objection has not been considered by the executing court. 2. So far as issue of copy of the award and other relevant documents by the executing court is concerned, I agree with the executing court that there is no obligation on the executing court to give copy of award and other connected papers. If Section 31(5) of the Act entitles petitioner to get a copy of the award, he has to work out that remedy. In this proceeding, petitioner has asked for a direction to respondent No.2 to issue a copy of the award. If copy of the award has not already been delivered by respondent No.2 he has to comply with Section 31(5) of the Act and the decision of the Apex Court stated above. W.P.C. No.16777 of 2010 -: 3 :- 3. So far as Ext.P3, objection raised by the petitioner before the executing court is concerned, it is for that court to consider the objection and pass appropriate orders. Certainly, before other steps are taken in the execution petition for realisation of the amount, executing court has to consider the objection and pass appropriate orders. Resultantly the writ petition is disposed of in the following lines: (i) Respondent No.2 is directed to deliver a signed copy of the award to the petitioner as enjoined under Section 31(5) of the Code as early as possible in case it is not already delivered. (ii) The executing court shall consider the objections raised by petitioner in Ext.P3 before proceeding with the execution for realisation of the amount. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Sbna/-