:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 247 OF 2008 EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 247 OF 2008 EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 247 OF 2008 IN IN IN ARBITRATION AWARD IN ARBITRATION MATTER ARBITRATION AWARD IN ARBITRATION MATTER ARBITRATION AWARD IN ARBITRATION MATTER NO. M-139/1998 DATED 25TH APRIL, 1999. NO. M-139/1998 DATED 25TH APRIL, 1999. NO. M-139/1998 DATED 25TH APRIL, 1999. M/s. Shilpa Shares & Securities ..Petitioner/ Claimant versus Rajesh Upadhyay ..Respondent Mr. Hemant Sapale, Managing Partner of Petitioner / Claimant present in person. None for Respondent. CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2009 DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2009 DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. A notice has been taken out under Order XXI Rule 22 of the C.P.C. The petitioner seeks to execute an Arbitral Award dated 25.4.1999 of the Sole Arbitrator under the rules and regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. The Award allowed the claim of the petitioner in the amount of Rs.1,90,201/- with interest at the rate of 18 per annum from 1.7.1998. Since the petitioner had a larger claim, he had challenged the Arbitral Award in Arbitration Petition No. 290 of 1999 which was dismissed on 27.10.1999. The respondent had also :2: challenged the Arbitral Award in Arbitration Petition No. 344 of 1999 which was dismissed on 29.11.1999. An Appeal was filed by the petitioner together with an application for condonation of delay. The Notice of Motion for condonation of delay was dismissed by the Division Bench on 27.1.2006. The Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner against the Judgment of the Division Bench was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11.8.2006. The execution application was filed on 3.7.2008. The notice under Order XXI Rule 22 has been served. 2. In paragraphs 2 and 4 of the affidavit in reply, it has been stated that the respondent is in financial difficulty and that he is willing to pay the principal amount with reasonable interest. The Executing Court cannot go behind the Arbitral Award, which is now enforceable as a decree of the Court. The Notice is accordingly made absolute. (DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.) (DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.) (DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)