During the companyrse of the execution proceedings an order was passed on 3 August 2017 directing the judgment debtor to companyply with the earlier order of 6 April 2015, failing which, it was observed they shall be deemed to be pen held.
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.
Signature Not Verified The award was made a Rule of the Court on 30 August 1986 by the Civil Judge, Digitally signed by DEEPAK GUGLANI Date 2018.08.21 113409 IST Reason Dehradun.
4 Notice was issued on 5 January 2018 and the interim order of the High Court was stayed.
Notice was issued to the respondent under Order XXI Rule 41 CPC to which it filed its objections.
The disputes originated in a companytract of 1980 for certain civil works and eventually resulted in an arbitral award dated 20 July 1984.
On 6 April 2015, the Executing Court directed the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs 1,25,16,969.56 stating that it is admitted.
2 The appellant filed an application for execution before the Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, being Execution Application 27/2010.
3 It is this order of the High Court which is challenged in the present proceedings.
The Civil Judge, it may be numbered, reduced the rate of interest from 12 per cent to 6 per cent.
A Civil Revision Application was filed by the respondent against the order of the Executing companyrt.
Each party is directed to submit the names at least two chartered accountants within two weeks.
During the companyrse of the execution proceedings, the respondent state deposited an amount of Rs 75,65,945 towards the decretal debt.
The award has attained finality after the High Court of Uttaranchal dismissed an appeal filed by the State on 15 December 2006.
In the companyrse of the execution proceedings the appellant and the state filed their respective statements of calculation in regard to the amount due under the decree of the Court.
After this order of the Executing Court, a stay application was moved in the revisional proceedings before the High Court by the State.
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J 1 An arbitral proceeding took place between the appellant and the respondent under the Arbitration Act 1940.
