Supreme Court of IndiaM/S Kohinoor Transporters vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 21 August, 2018Equivalent citations: AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 4138, (2018) 2 WLC(SC)CVL 410, AIR 2018 SC (CIV) 2999, (2019) 1 MAD LW 286, (2018) 10 SCALE 50, (2019) 133 ALL LR 710, (2018) 6 ANDHLD 77, (2018) 4 CIVILCOURTC 667, (2018) 4 JCR 215 (SC), AIRONLINE 2018 SC 135Author:D Y ChandrachudBench:D Y Chandrachud,Dipak Misra1


                                                                                REPORTABLE


                                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                    CIVIL APPEAL NO 8338              OF 2018
                                   (Arising out of SLP (C) No 35502 of 2017)



         M/S KOHINOOR TRANSPORTERS                                          ..... APPELLANT



                                                   Versus


         STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                                             ..... RESPONDENT




                                                JUDGMENTDr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J


         1               An arbitral proceeding took place between the appellant and the respondent

         under theArbitration Act1940. The disputes originated in a contract of 1980 for

         certain civil works and eventually resulted in an arbitral award dated 20 July 1984.Signature Not VerifiedThe award was made a Rule of the Court on 30 August 1986 by the Civil Judge,Digitally signed byDEEPAK GUGLANIDate: 2018.08.2111:34:09 ISTReason:Dehradun. The award has attained finality after the High Court of Uttaranchal2dismissed 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.



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 their respective statements of calculation in regard

to the amount due under the decree of the Court. 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’. Notice was issued to the respondent underOrder XXI Rule 41

CPCto which it filed its objections. 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 April 2015,

failing which, it was observed “they shall be deemed to be pen held”. 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:3“..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 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 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 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 underSection 47of the CPC all

questions in regard to the execution discharge or satisfaction of a decree have to

be determined by the Executing Court;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.46     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 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 proceeding is pending before the

Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun and, 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 underSection 47of the CPC. The Executing Court must execute the decree as it stands

without adding anything to it. In the counter affidavit which has been 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 Accountant, particularly at this stage.58     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 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.….....................................CJI
                                                     [DIPAK MISRA]



                                                   …......................................J
                                                     [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD]


New Delhi
August 21, 2018