:1: :1: :1: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1864 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s Orders Orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.S.S.Kanetkar, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.S.N.Chandrachud, Adv. for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 27TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The petitioners before me are the Judgment Debtors. The Respondents are the Decree Holders. 2. It has been urged before me by the petitioners, that they were parties to arbitration proceedings. Respondent no.2 was the Arbitrator. Respondent no.1 were the Original Claimants. Respondent No.3 is the :2: :2: :2: other partner of the petitioners. 3. The Arbitration proceedings ended with an Award dated 15.1.1993. In the same, the petitioners were directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,14,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to the Respondent no.1. 4. The petitioners were not aware of the said Award and it is their case that the execution proceedings commenced on 2.2.1993. In such circumstances, they applied for setting aside the Arbitral Award by filing Misc.Application No.124 of 1993. 5. The First Respondent applied for a Decree in terms of the Award. Both Applications were taken together. Misc.Application No.124 of 1993 filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed on default on 20.6.1998. The Application filed by Respondent no.1 for Decree in terms of the Award was allowed. The petitioner applied for restoration of their :3: :3: :3: Misc.Application by filing Misc.Application No.518 of 1999. However, that also came to be dismissed on 13.2.2002. 6. Earlier a Writ Petition was filed in this court but the same was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file Application for restoration of the petition under Section 30. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this court, another Misc.Application was filed with an Application for condonation of delay. Mr.Chandrachud appearing for the First Respondent informs me that even this Application is dismissed on 4.3.2008. 7. The First Respondent succeeded in obtaining a Decree in terms of the Award on 13.4.2005. They filed execution proceedings being Special Darkhast No.275 of 2005. It is during the course of the said proceedings that the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order rejects the request of the petitioner for stay of Execution proceedings. Now a further :4: :4: :4: Order is passed directing the Petitioner to deposit the decreetal claim with interest by 5.3.2008, failing which, the executing court will detain him in civil prison. 8. Aggrieved by the order rejecting the request to stay Execution Proceedings, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed. 9. After hearing both sides, and considering that the petitioner has now deposited in the Executing Court a sum of Rs.3,03,000/-, this Writ petition can be disposed off by the following order. 10. Liberty is granted to the First Respondent to withdraw this sum with accrued interest, if any, upon furnishing Security to the satisfaction of the Executing Court. 11. In the light of the deposit of the Decreetal amount and the withdrawal thereof :5: :5: :5: being permitted, it is directed that the petitioners Application to challenge the Arbitral Award being Misc.Application No.124 of 1993 shall now be restored to the file and reheard and disposed off as expeditiously as possible and within a period of 3 months from today. In the event of the petitioners non-co-operation, the Trial Court is at liberty to dismiss this Application in default as well. However, the petitioners must deposit or pay costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-, condition precedent, to the First Respondent within a period of 2 weeks from today. It is only in the event of payment of costs, that the delay would stand condoned and the Application would be heard on merits. If the petitioner defaults in payment of costs, the Writ petition stands dismissed without any further reference to the court. 12. In the light of the order passed today, all other Misc.Applications are disposed off. :6: :6: :6: sd/- **********