(e / \-r II\T TIIE HIGH COURT OF DELHI FAO (OS) s34t2001 DATE OF DECISION :-December Z,ZOO3 DELHMDYUT BOARD ... Appellanr Through Mr.Jayant Nath with B.C.Pandey, Advocate versus VICTOR CABLE INDUSTRY .....Respondenrs Through Ms. Sangeeta Jain, Advocate EFA (OS) 13t2001 DELHI VIDYUT BOARD Appellant Through Mr.Jayant Nath with B.C.Pandey, Advocate I VICTOR CABLE INDUSTRY .....Respondenrs Through Ms. Sangeeta Jain, Advocate ' CORAM;- * HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.KHAN * HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.N.CHATURVEDI 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be rcferred to the Reporter or not? 3. TVhether the judgment should be reported in Bre Digest ? .. a' . r' .'! ' ' t , ; The two appeals are filed by appellant-DVB against two Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified , .l \f different orders dated 28.11-2001 and 9.1 L.?ml. The first order allows respondents two applications (I-4-3034/1996 and 3515/1996) seeking condonation of delay and sening aside of the ex parte decree and for recalling the order of ex parte decree and allowing respondent to file objections ro award dated 2g-g.lgg3-The second order issues waffants of attachment to attach the birnk account of qppellant in Execution Petition no.?frOl?ffiOfiled by respondent. t ' The first appeal arises in the following circumstances. Disputes arose between parties leading to the passing of award dated 2g.g.1gg3 in favour of appellant' Respondent filed objetions to this but mentioned the zuit number wrongly as 35/1993 instead of 3511994. As a resulr these objecrions werenot taken in regard culminating in ex parte decree dated 12.1.1995 against respondent. .dfter respondent carne to know of this, ir filed I.A. 3034/g6 and 3515/1996 and sought condonation of delay and setting aside of the ex parte decree. Both these applications were considered and allowed by impugned order dated zl..LL.2ffilpassed in suit no. 3511994 and ttre objections filed by respondent were ordered to be taken on record- we are inforrned that these objections were under consideration of the learned Single Judge' rtrre find nothiDg wrong in the impugned order because respondents, objections to the award were admittedly not considered at the time of making the award a rule of court which was due to a typogrqphical erroc The objections therefore warranted consideration and that is what is done by the impugned onder. we find no scope ro interfere and dismiss this appeal (FAo s34rzffir)consequeotly. As regarrds the other appeal (EFA (os) 13n001) which is directed against the warrants of attachment taken in Execution petition oo.2002o00 for execution of the decree obtained by respondent fior Rs.98 lacs with interest. we find that appellant's interests stand protected by the interim stay order passed by this court staying tbe operation of these warrants. This appeal can, therefore, be convenientlv .a a. c \i disposed of by providing that impugned warrants of attachment shall not take effect till respondent's objections in suit no.35/1994 are decided and one month thereafter. Should respondent's objections fail resulting in decree to be passed against the respondent, it shall be open to appellant to seek adjustment of the Award amount in suit no.35/1994 in respondent's execution proceedings no.2001200o and to saisfy the respondent's decree for the remaining amount failing which warrant of attachment shall revive to the extent of ttre amouot and the execution proceedings shall proceed under law. The second appeal is also acordingly disposed of. At this stage it was pointed out by respondents' counsel that this court by order dated 18.12.2001 passed in FAO (OS) 534/mol had required BIFR not to insist on respondent depositing Rs.5O lacs or so in view of the pendency of respondent's objections against award dated 29.9.1993 in suit no.35/1994 before this court. This direction sha1l continue to remain in forcetill 31.1.?104 by which time respondent is expected to obtain orrders on its objections against the award. Should there be gnydelay in disposing of these objections respondent can approach the court by an appropriate remedy and seek requisite orders. December2,?m3. mg v A T