Housing Board Haryana, Panchkula vs M/s. Metro Designers and Developers (P) Ltd.

L.N. Mittal, J.—Judgment debtor (JD)-Housing Board Haryana has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 18.05.2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh as executing Court. The respondent as contractor was allotted seven works by the petitioner. Dispute between the parties was referred to Arbitrator, who made seven awards relating to the seven agreements. Respondent sent letter dated 18.08.1999 Annexure P-1 to the petitioner for implementation of the said awards, mentioning the amounts awarded by the Arbitrator against each agreement. Perusal thereof reveals that in five agreements, amounts were awarded to the contractor and in the remaining two agreements, amounts were awarded to the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent alleged that net amount of Rs. 4,88,631/- was payable to it by the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly paid the amount of Rs. 4,88,631/- to the respondent vide voucher dated 18.10.1999 Annexure P-2. Besides it, the petitioner also paid requisite amount of interest to the respondent.

The respondent filed execution petition alleging that out of one award for Rs. 1,11,912/- in its favour, the petitioner had paid amount of Rs. 14,499/- only and therefore amount of Rs. 97,413/- still remained due from the petitioner to the respondent.

The petitioner filed objections Annexure P-5 alleging that after adjusting the amount awarded in favour of the petitioner, amount of all the awards had been paid to the respondent along with interest.

Respondent by filing reply Annexure P-6 controverted the objections alleging that award in question had not been satisfied fully as mentioned in the execution petition.

Learned Executing Court vide impugned order dated 18.05.2004 upheld the plea of respondent-decree holder (DH) and has dismissed the objection petition filed by petitioner-JD. Feeling aggrieved, JD has filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

None appeared for respondent on 18.07.2013. In the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to 05.08.2013. Counsel for the respondent was ordered to be informed by the office. Accordingly counsel for the respondent was informed telephonically by the office for 05.08.2013, but in spite thereof, none appeared for the respondent on 05.08.2013. The case was adjourned for today with last opportunity for respondent. However, even today, none has appeared for the respondent. Resultantly, I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

The respondent-DH itself sent letter Annexure P-1 to the petitioner JD demanding the awarded amount as detailed in the said letter after adjusting the amounts of awards which were in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly paid the said amount as demanded by the respondent. Consequently, all the awards, including the disputed award sought to be executed, stand satisfied. Receipt of the amount vide voucher Annexure P-2 as demanded by the respondent itself is not disputed. Receipt of the interest amount is also not disputed. Consequently, the respondent cannot seek recovery of any alleged balance amount on the ground that there are seven independent awards and amount of one award cannot be adjusted against the amount of another award. The respondent itself having demanded the net amount of all the seven awards vide its letter Annexure P-1, cannot turn around and plead that the awards have to be executed separately. On the contrary, pursuant to demand of respondent vide letter Annexure P-1, the petitioner without delay paid the requisite amount to the respondent. Consequently, all the awards stood satisfied.

In the aforesaid circumstances, impugned order passed by the Executing Court is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. No amount remained due from the petitioner to the respondent under any award. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.05.2004 passed by the executing Court is set aside. Objections Annexure P-5 filed by the petitioner-JD are allowed. Counsel for the petitioner stated that pursuant to impugned order of the executing Court, the respondent has recovered the amount of Rs. 97,413/- along with interest from the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, held entitled to get back the said amount from the respondent with interest @ 18 % per annum. The matter is remitted to the executing Court for restitution of the aforesaid amount to the petitioner from the respondent. Parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 10.09.2013.