C.R. No.7823 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7823 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: December 16, 2010 SH. MANISH MISHRA ...PETITIONER VERSUS HARYANA AGRO-INDUSTRIES CORP. LTD. ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. Yes 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes ---- PRESENT: MR. M.C. KOCHHAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) The Revision is filed against the order of arrest made in execution of the decree against the judgement debtor for recovery of certain money. The decree was in terms of an award passed by an Arbitrator. The amount that still stands due is to the tune of one crore of rupees. The order had been passed on 10.9.2010, directing the Superintendent of Police, Karnal to cause arrest of the person/judgement debtor by deputing a special party to execute the warrant at all the three places of residence of judgement debtor, namely, at Karnal, Delhi where the office of the company is situated and Patna on the address of House No.2, Circular Road, Patna. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner states that the order had been passed on 10.9.2010, even when there was a settlement between the parties. Its a one time settlement (OTS) brought between the decree holder and the judgement debtor on 21.4.2010, where C.R. No.7823 of 2010 -2- the judgement debtor had offered to pay the amount within 6 months including 60 days time allowed for making a payment of about Rs.50 lacs. Admittedly, till date no amount has been paid as per the settlement. As of now, the one time settlement has become unworkable since under its terms, it is seen that if there had been any non-compliance within the expiry of 6 months period, the one time settlement would stand withdrawn. It is not a situation that any portion of the award has remained satisfied and that the order of arrest has whittled down the effect of OTS. 3. Learned counsel also points out that at the hearing before the Court, the Court had directed list of proprietors to be furnished which he had done. The judgement debtor is not trying to run away and therefore, there shall be no occasion to direct the arrest of the petitioner. It must be remembered that the provision of arrest is one of the modes of execution of civil decree. The discretionary power to be exercised by the Court under Order 21 Rule 37 extends to call upon a judgement debtor who is liable to be arrested to show cause as to why he should not be committed to civil prison. The Court has taken note of the fact that the judgement debtor was a son of an ex-Chief Minister of the State of Bihar and the Executing Court was convinced that there was a deliberate attempt to browbeat and get away from the reach of the Court. Therefore, the executing Court had ordered that the arrest warrant would be issued and publication was also to be made specifically mentioning in the warrant that the judgement-debtor was the son of Mr. Jagan Nath Mishra, ex-Chief Minister and that there should not be any confusion about the identity of the individual. In my view, the executing Court has shown circumspection to ensure that there was no undue embarrassment by referring to the name wrongly and no one is misled C.R. No.7823 of 2010 -3- about the identity. The provision of arrest itself is not without sufficient safeguards. If the arrest warrant is executed and the judgement debtor is brought to Court, he shall be asked his means and the Court shall undertake a summary enquiry as regards the means of the judgement debtor to pay before committing him to civil prison. So long as the judgement-debtor is not an insolvent and the application for arrest is supported by an affidavit of means of judgement debtor as given by the decree holder, the executing Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders and offer to the judgement- debtor an opportunity to explain himself when he is brought before the Court after causing the arrest. There is no illegality in the order of arrest itself and I see no reason to interfere with the same committing the respondent to arrest. The revision petitioner shall be arrested and brought before the executing Court before 15.1.2011 and this order, while affirming the impugned order merely alters the date of arrest as mentioned in the impugned order and in all other respects the directions to police authorities shall stand. 4. The revision petition is dismissed. December 16, 2010 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE