IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 21295 of 2010(O) -------------------------- EP.94/2009 of DISTRICT COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LTD. 4TH FLOOR, CAPITOL CENTRE, STATUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SHRI BINO THOMAS. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.MURUGAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MRS HAJIRA BEEVI C/O. T.A.RASHEED, HARA, KAVALIYOOR, VARKALA-695 141 2. MR.M.DILEEP KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE,KIZHAKKEVILA PO,PARIPPALLY-691 574 ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R1 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R1 SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21295 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZING BINO THOMAS DTD. 21.03.2003 EXHIBIT P2 : AWARD DTD. 14.09.2007 IN AC No.43/2006 EXHIBIT P3 : EP 94/09 ON THE FILE OF DIST. COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P4 : OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT EP 94/2009 EXHIBIT P5 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET IN E P 94/2009 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1(a): NOTICE DTD. 30.11.2006 FILED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL EXHIBIT R1(b): OBJECTION FILED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL True Copy P.A to Judge THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.21295 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 30th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Ext.P5, order dated 05-03-2010 of the court of learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in E.P.No.94 of 2009 is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of decree holder. According to the petitioner, it has obtained Ext.P2, award against respondent No.1 for payment of certain amount and the award was sought to be executed before the learned District Judge by filing Ext.P3, E.P.No.94 of 2009. Respondent No.1 opposed execution. Ext.P4 is the objection contending inter alia that a signed copy of the award was not delivered to respondent No.1. In view of that contention learned District Judge passed the impugned order and called for entire records from the arbitrator. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that executing court had no power to go behind the award and it was not necessary to call for records from the arbitrator leading to Ext.P2, award. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”), after the arbitral award is made a signed copy is to be delivered to each party and under Section 34(3) of that Act, respondent No.1 has W.P.C.No.21295 of 2010 : 2 : three months' time from the date of receipt of such copy of arbitral award and to request the court to set aside that award. Secton 36 of the Act states that the award is to be executed after the time for making an application to set aside the award under Section 34 has expired or, such application having been made, it has been refused. In short, contention of respondent No.1 is that in so far as a signed copy of arbitral award has not been delivered to her, respondent No.1 has three months' time to seek to set aside that award from the day a signed copy of the arbitral award is delivered to him and that having not been done, question of execution of the arbitral award does not arise. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that it is for the limited purpose of opposing executability of the award on the above ground that request was made to summon records leading to Ext.P2, award to ascertain whether a signed copy of the award has been delivered to respondent No.1. Learned counsel also points out that records summoned have already been produced before the learned District Judge and hence writ petition has become infructuous. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has taken me through Sections 31(5), 34(3) and 36 of the Act. It is pointed out that it is only for the limited purpose of sustaining objection to the executability of award that records have been called for and W.P.C.No.21295 of 2010 : 3 : produced before the learned District Judge. Having gone through the said provisions and heard counsel on both sides I am persuaded to think that learned District Judge was justified in summoning the records to ascertain whether a signed copy of the award has been delivered to respondent No.1 for the limited purpose of appreciating objection raised by respondent No.1 to the executability of the award. In that view of the matter there is little reason to interfere with the impugned order. Resultantly this writ petition fails. It is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-