Arbitration | Decree Holder Cannot Seek An Unquantified Claim In Execution Proceedings: Delhi High Court

While dismissing a second execution petition filed in respect of “unsatisfied” claims in an Arbitral Award, the Delhi High Court has held that a court cannot go behind the Award in execution proceedings and enable decree holder to fill gaps in producing evidence. Considering that the cost statement in question was made subject to certification by the Arbitral Tribunal but no proof of payment was forthcoming from the decree holder, Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed, “…the decree holder cannot, under the garb of this execution petition, seek a claim that was not quantified in the award due to failure of the parties to furnish proof”. The decree holder had filed the petition u/s 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“A&C Act”), contending 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 had been paid and thus the Award stood satisfied. After perusing the order passed in the first execution petition, the court noted that insofar as the interest component was concerned, the decree holder was held entitled to payment of Rs.7,57,948/- by the judgment debtor and the said amount had admittedly been paid. On the aspect of arbitration cost, it was observed that the Arbitral Tribunal had awarded 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. Arriving at the conclusion, the court underlined 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 of the Tribunal or before the court. As such, the decree holder could not be allowed at execution stage to fill gaps in providing evidence of costs. Advocates Shantha Devi Raman and Mayank Ranjan Yadav appeared for the decree holder Advocate Udyan Srivastava appeared for the judgment debtor Case Title: H.P. Cotton Textile Mills Ltd v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 123/2019Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1188Click here to read/download judgment

Arbitration | Decree Holder Cannot Seek An Unquantified Claim In Execution Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Debby Jain

Tags