1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1622 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.202 OF 2008 IN EXECUTIONAPPLICATION NO.21 OF 2004 Unique Integrated Transport and Management Consultancies Pvt.Ltd. ..Claimant/DH. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd and anr. ..Respondents. Mr.K.K.Khanna for the plaintiff. Mrs.S.I.Shah for the Defendants. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 22nd June, 2010 PC : 1 This is a chamber summons taken out by the Judgment Debtor for setting aside an order dated 24.9.2008 passed by the Taxing Master in Chamber Summons No.202/2008. Before proceeding further, it must be stated that the counsel appearing for the Judgment debtor stated that she was pressing for setting aside an order only in so far as it pertains to claim No.12 for an amount of Rs.1,09,692/- with interest thereon calculated at Rs. 99,939.93ps. 2 It is seen that the Arbitration award under the 2 Arbitration Act, 1940 was subject matter of Arbitration Petition No.261/2000. In the said Arbitration petition, award had been challenged by the Judgment debtor. Ultimately the said arbitration petition came to be dismissed and as regards the claim No.12 decree which was stayed and passed by this court reads as under. This Court ordered and decree that the petitioners do pay to the respondents a sum of Rs.1,09,692/- towards the debt in respect of three bank guarantees and a sum of Rs.85,604 towards the interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from 1.8.1993 to 7.5.1998 and from 22.4.2000 to 26.9.2000 and do further pay further interest on the principal amount of Rs.1,09,692/- at the rate of 15% p. a. from the hereof till payment or realization . 3 The aforesaid decree was challenged by the Judgment debtor before the Division Bench and the appeal was dismissed. Matter was then carried to the Apex Court. But the challenge to the order of the Appeal court was not pressed beyond the claim Nos. 3 to 9. That challenge was also negatived by the Apex Court. In such situation, it appears that the decree has become final. 4 Now it is contended on behalf of the Judgment debtor that as regards the Claim No.12, on 16.10.2010, the Oriental Bank of Commerce issued to them a letter undertaking that an 3 amount of Rs.1.09,692/- had been deposited initially in the sundry account and later on in the account of the Judgment debtor. It is seen that this letter has been issued after the decree was passed. On the basis of this letter, it may be open for the Judgment debtor to contend that the decree was obtained by fraud or that claim was fraudulent. If any such application is made, evidence will have to be led to prove the allegations of fraud. The court of Execution will not be in a position to go behind the decree. The Taxing Master aids in court in execution and he cannot do what is prohibited by law. In the net result, in my view, since the decree itself categorically held that the Judgment debtor is liable to pay amount as claimed by the Judgment creditor in respect of Item No.12 at specified rate. It will not be the duty of the Taxing Master to go beyond the decree and as rightly contended, he has only to execute the decree. Chamber summons is therefore, dismissed. 6 In this matter property is already attached. Advocate Mrs. Shah appearing for the Judgment debtor states that property which is attached may not be sold to enable her to challenge this order. Sale shall not be effected for a period of 4-weeks from today. Certified copy expedited. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)