The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench has held that as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the executing court having jurisdiction to execute the award can be any court anywhere in the country where the decree can be executed.

The Court was deciding a case in which the short question involved in the petition was regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court for execution of an award.

A Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia said, “… the Executing Court having jurisdiction to execute the award can be any court anywhere in the Country, where the decree can be executed and thus in view of the law expounded in the case of Cheran Properties Limited (Supra), I have no hesitation in holding that the objection of the petitioner that the Court at Lucknow had no jurisdiction loses its relevance and is worthy of rejection.”

Advocate Manish Jauhari appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Senior Advocate J.N. Mathur appeared on behalf of the respondent.

Factual Background -

The petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement for supply of Conductor through a Purchased Order and thereafter, in pursuance to the said order, an agreement was entered into. In terms of the said agreement, certain payments were to be made based on the supply made by the respondent to the petitioner. The dispute occurred regarding the payment of the pending bill raised by the respondent. An application was moved by the respondent claiming an amount of Rs. 15,27,30,879/- along with interest thereupon quantified at Rs. 4,88,82,916/- through an application before the U.P. State Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Kanpur (in short ‘the Council’). The petitioner put his appearance before the Council and contested the claim.

The Council proceeded to pass an award/order against the petitioner directing to deposit total amount of Rs. 9,97,58,764/- in favour of the respondent, which was directed to be paid as per the provisions of the “Act 27/2006” on the delayed payment. Challenging the said award, the petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short ‘the MSMED Act’) read with Section 34 of The Arbitration Act but the same was rejected by the Judge. Thereafter, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was filed in which no interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed an application for execution of the award before the Commercial Court, Lucknow. The petitioner put in appearance and filed the objections but the same were rejected by the Commercial Court, which was then challenged by the petitioner by filing the instant petition before the High Court.

The High Court in the above regard observed, “The issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the executing court was neither doubted nor was referred. … the argument of the Counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained as there is no error or infirmity in the order impugned dated 10.03.2023 passed by the Commercial Court, Lucknow and the same is upheld.”

The Court, therefore, directed the Commercial Court to expeditiously conclude the execution proceedings in accordance with the law.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title- Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. M/s. Shashi Cable (Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC-LKO:66805)

Click here to read/download the Judgment