M/S KOHINOOR TRANSPORTERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

22                      [2018]REPORTS
              SUPREME COURT    10 S.C.R. 22               [2018] 10 S.C.R.


A                    M/S KOHINOOR TRANSPORTERS
                                        v.
                        STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
                        (Civil Appeal No. 8338 of 2018)
B                              AUGUST 21, 2018
      [DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
           Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
             s.47 – Money decree – Execution proceedings – Both the
C    parties filed their respective statements of calculations in regard to
     the amount due under the decree of the Court – Executing Court
     rejected the objections filed by respondent – Revision by respondent
     – High Court directed the appointment of Chartered Accountant to
     consider the details of arrears – Held: High Court acted in manifest
     excess of its jurisdiction while directing the appointment of a
D
     Chartered Accountant for the purpose of determining as to whether
     the decretal debt is to be marked as satisfied – The execution
     proceeding is pending before the Civil Judge and various orders
     have been passed thereon from time to time – The issue as to whether
     the decree has been discharged or satisfied has to be determined
E    by the Executing Court under s.47. CPC – The Executing Court
     must execute the decree as it stands, without adding anything to it –
     In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, the
     contention of the appellant that there was an admission in regard to
     the balance of Rs 1.25 crores is sought to be controverted – All
     these are matters which must properly be addressed in the course of
F
     the execution proceedings – The High Court has acted in excess of
     jurisdiction by directing the appointment of a Chartered Accountant,
     particularly at this stage – The impugned order of the High Court is
     set aside – Having regard to the fact that the dispute between the
     parties arose out of a contract of 1980 and an award of 1984 which
G    is still being executed, the High Court to dispose of the Civil Revision
     expeditiously.
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8338
     of 2018.

H
                                       22
        M/S KOHINOOR TRANSPORTERS v. STATE OF                               23
                   UTTAR PRADESH

      From the Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2017 of the High Court        A
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in CLR No.147 of 2016.
    Abhay Kumar, Saurabh Mishra, Himanshu Pal Singh, Mukul
Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
      Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Charu Singhal, Vikas Chaudhary, Advs. for
the Respondent.                                                             B

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. An arbitral proceeding took
place between the appellant and the respondent under the Arbitration
Act 1940. The disputes originated in a contract of 1980 for certain civil   C
works and eventually resulted in an arbitral award dated 20 July 1984.
The award was made a Rule of the Court on 30 August 1986 by the
Civil Judge, Dehradun. The award has attained finality after the High
Court of Uttaranchal dismissed an appeal filed by the State on 15
December 2006. The Civil Judge, it may be noted, reduced the rate of
interest from 12 per cent to 6 per cent.                                    D
       2. The appellant filed an application for execution before the
Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, being Execution Application 27/2010.
During the course of the execution proceedings, the respondent-state
deposited an amount of Rs 75,65,945 towards the decretal debt. In the
course of the execution proceedings the appellant and the state filed       E
their respective statements of calculation in regard to the amount due
under the decree of the Court. On 6 April 2015, the Executing
Courtdirected the respondent to deposit an amount of
Rs 1,25,16,969.56 stating that it is‘admitted’. Notice was issued to the
respondent under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC to which it filed its objections.    F
On 16 August 2016, the Executing Court rejected the objections on the
ground that the amount of Rs 1.25 crores was admitted, as evident from
the earlier order dated 6 April 2015. A Civil Revision Application was
filed by the respondent against the order of the Executing court. During
the course of the execution proceedings an order was passed on 3 August
2017 directing the judgment debtor to comply with the earlier order of 6    G
April 2015, failing which, it was observed “they shall be deemed to be
penheld”. After this order of the Executing Court, a stay application was
moved in the revisional proceedings before the High Court by the State.
The High Court by its impugned order directed the appointment of a
Chartered Accountant in the following terms:
                                                                            H
24            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 10 S.C.R.


A          “..So, I think that notwithstanding the absence of any prayer
           regarding the appointment of competent persons in this regard,
           the only recourse which may be helpful to the Court is to appoint
           a Chartered Accountant in this matter who shall consider the
           details of the arrears, as have been claimed by the decree holder,
           and the details of accounts depicted in the departmental narrative
B
           submitted by the judgment debtor.
           Each party is directed to submit the names at least two chartered
           accountants within two weeks.”
           3. It is this order of the High Court which is challenged in the
C    present proceedings.
           4. Notice was issued on 5 January 2018 and the interim order of
     the High Court was stayed.
           5. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that the High
     Court was manifestly in error in directing the appointment of a Chartered
D    Accountant for three reasons:
            Firstly, the High Court acted in excess of jurisdiction by directing
     the appointment of a Chartered Accountant in a civil revision when under
     Section 47 of the CPC all questions in regard to the execution discharge
     or satisfaction of a decree have to be determined by the Executing Court;
E
            Secondly, there was no challenge to either the order dated 6 April
     2015 or the order dated 3 August 2017 of the Executing Court requiring
     the respondent to deposit the ‘admitted’ dues of Rs 1.25 crores; and
            Thirdly, the interim order of the High Court virtually amounts to
     the grant of final relief while considering the stay application.
F
            6. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the State
     that the appellant is seeking to aggrandize itself by revising its decretal
     claim. Whatever was due has been deposited and an amount of
     Rs.75,65,945 was deposited before the Executing Court as far back as
     on 7 December 2012. It was urged that it is not open to the Executing
G    Court to go behind the decree.
            7. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that the
     High Court has acted in manifest excess of its jurisdiction while directing
     the appointment of a Chartered Accountant for the purpose of determining
     as to whether the decretal debt is to be marked as satisfied. The execution
H
         M/S KOHINOOR TRANSPORTERS v. STATE OF                                    25
        UTTAR PRADESH [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

proceeding is pending before the Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun and,            A
as we have noticed, various orders have been passed thereon from time
to time. The issue as to whether the decree has been discharged or
satisfied has to be determined by the Executing Court under Section 47
of the CPC. The Executing Court must execute the decree as it stands
without adding anything to it.In the counter affidavit which has been
                                                                                  B
filed on behalf of the respondent, the contention of the appellant that
there was an admission in regard to the balance of Rs 1.25 crores is
sought to be controverted.But that is a matter which need not detain this
Court. All these are matters which must properly be addressed in the
course of the execution proceedings. The High Court, in our view, has
acted in excess of jurisdiction by directing the appointment of a Chartered       C
Accountant, particularly at this stage.
       8. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
order of the High Court dated 18 September 2017.Having regard to the
fact that the dispute between the parties arises out of a contract of 1980
and an award of 1984 which is still being executed,we request the High            D
Court to dispose of the Civil Revision 147/2016 expeditiously, but in any
event within a period of three months from the date on which a certified
copy of this order is placed on its record. The Civil Appeal is, accordingly,
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
                                                                                  E
Devika Gujral                                               Appeal disposed of.




                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H