1 wp8363 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8363 OF 2010 M/s.Kahan Pharmaceuticals through Prop.Manishkumar Amrutlal Shah ...Petitioner vs. Vipul Drugs Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondent Mr.Satyajeet Mirajkar for the Petitioner None for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 P.C.: 1 On the basis of the order dated 7 th September 2011 passed by the Hon ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side, this writ petition has been assigned to this Court. 2 The petitioner is the Judgment Debtor in an execution application filed for enforcing the award made by the Arbitrator. An application was made by the petitioner at Exh.16 contending that the alleged Award sought to be executed cannot be termed as an Award and therefore, the question of existence of a valid award arises in execution proceedings. Prayer made in the application at Exh.16 reads thus : Hon ble court be pleased to decide that the award which is basis of the decree is not an award as required by law. 2 wp8363 3 The petitioner challenged the said order by filing the writ petition in this Court. By Judgment and Order dated 15 th February 2010, writ petition was rejected. 4 After rejection of the writ petition, a fresh application at Exh.29 was filed contending that the Award sought to be executed was null and void on various grounds. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issues raised by application at Exh.29 were completely different from the one which was raised by filing the application at Exh.16. He submitted that by the impugned order, the Executing Court has not decided the application at Exh.29 on merits and therefore, the Trial Court be directed to decide the application on merits. He pointed out that the case that the Award was null and void was not made out in the earlier application and that is why the order passed on the application at Exh.16 was confirmed by this Court. 6 Perusal of the application at Exh.16 shows that the contention raised therein was that the award sought to be executed was not at all an Award and therefore, a prayer was made for deciding the question whether the Award which is the basis of the decree is not the Award as required by law. 3 wp8363 7 The objections which are now sought to be raised by application at Exh.29 could have been and ought to have been raised while filing the application at exh.16. The application at Exh.16 was rejected and order passed on Exh.16 was confirmed by this Court. This Court did not grant any liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application raising a fresh set of objections to the executability of the award. As the contentions raised in Application at Exh.29 could have been raised in earlier application at Exh.16 which was rejected on merits, the learned Trial Judge was right in rejecting the application at Exh.29. Hence, no case is made out for interference. The Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE