Decree Holder Not Allowed To Seek Unquantified Claim In Execution Proceedings: Delhi High Court
The petition was filed under the A&C Act stating that arbitration cost and interest awarded were not claimed earlier
trueasdfstory
Decree Holder Not Allowed To Seek Unquantified Claim In Execution Proceedings: Delhi High Court The petition was filed under the A&C Act stating that arbitration cost and interest awarded were not claimed earlier The Delhi High Court has held that a Court cannot go behind the award in execution proceedings and enable the decree holder to fill the gaps in producing the evidence....
Decree Holder Not Allowed To Seek Unquantified Claim In Execution Proceedings: Delhi High Court
The petition was filed under the A&C Act stating that arbitration cost and interest awarded were not claimed earlier
The Delhi High Court has held that a Court cannot go behind the award in execution proceedings and enable the decree holder to fill the gaps in producing the evidence. It observed that the cost statement was made subject to certification by the arbitral tribunal, but no proof of payment was forthcoming from the decree-holder.
A bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri ruled, “The decree-holder cannot, under the garb of the execution petition, seek a claim that was not quantified in the award due to failure of the parties to furnish the proof.”
The decree-holder had filed the petition under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (A&C) Act. It contended that arbitration cost and interest awarded were inadvertently not claimed in the first execution petition.
The judgment debtor contested the petition, claiming that the entire sum under the award was paid. Thus, the award stood satisfied.
After perusing the order passed in the first execution petition, the Court noted that regarding the interest component, the decree-holder was entitled to a payment of Rs.7,57,948 by the judgment debtor and it was paid.
Regarding the arbitration cost, the Court observed that the arbitral tribunal had awarded the cost on three counts, of which two were quantified. The third head, viz. fee and expenses of the decree holder’s counsel was not quantified even though a cost statement mentioning the counsel’s fee was on record.
Thus, the judge stated that the third head was made subject to certification by the arbitral tribunal, yet neither any invoice nor any proof of payment was placed on record before the tribunal or the Court. Therefore, the decree-holder could not be allowed to fill the gaps by providing evidence of costs at the execution stage.
Advocates Shantha Devi Raman and Mayank Ranjan Yadav appeared for the decree-holder.
The judgment debtor was represented by advocate Udyan Srivastava.