FAO(OS)/534/2001 of D.V.B. Vs VICTOR CABLE INDUSTRY on 2 December 2003

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may beallowed to see the judgment?allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be rcferred to the Reporter or not?

3. TVhether the judgment should be reportedin Bre Digest ?in Bre Digest ?

.. a' . [r'], ;, ;

.'! ' ' [t ]

The two appeals are filed by appellant-DVB against two .l,\f .a a.

different orders dated 28.11-2001 and 9.1 L.?ml. The first order allows respondentstwo applications (I-4-3034/1996 and 3515/1996) seeking condonation of delay andsening aside of the ex parte decree and for recalling the order of ex parte decree andallowing respondent to file objections ro award dated 2g-g.lgg3-The second orderissues waffants of attachment to attach the birnk account of qppellant in ExecutionPetition no.?frOl?ffiOfiled by respondent. t ' [The ][first ]appeal arises in the following circumstances. Disputes arosebetween parties leading to the passing of award dated 2g.g.1gg3 in favour ofappellant' Respondent filed objetions to this but mentioned the zuit numberwrongly as 35/1993 instead of 3511994. As a resulr these objecrions werenot taken inregard culminating in ex parte decree dated 12.1.1995 against respondent. .dfterrespondent carne to know of this, ir filed I.A. 3034/g6 and 3515/1996 and soughtcondonation of delay and setting aside of the ex parte decree. Both these applicationswere considered and allowed by impugned order dated zl..LL.2ffilpassed in suit no.3511994 and ttre objections filed by respondent were ordered to be taken on record-we are inforrned that these objections were under consideration of the learned SingleJudge' [rtrre ]find nothiDg wrong in the impugned order because respondents, objectionsto the award were admittedly not considered at the time of making the award a rule ofcourt which was due to a typogrqphical erroc The objections therefore warrantedconsideration and that is what is done by the impugned onder. we find no scope rointerfere and dismiss this appeal (FAo s34rzffir)consequeotly.

As regarrds the other appeal (EFA (os) 13n001) which is directedagainst the warrants of attachment taken in Execution petition oo.2002o00 forexecution of the decree obtained by respondent fior Rs.98 lacs with interest. we findthat appellant's interests stand protected by the interim stay order passed by this courtstaying tbe operation of these warrants. This appeal can, therefore, be convenientlv c \i v A

T

disposed of by providing that impugned warrants of [attachment ][shall not ][take ][effect]till respondent's objections in suit no.35/1994 are decided [and ][one month ][thereafter.]Should respondent's objections fail resulting in decree to be [passed ][against ][the]respondent, it shall be open to appellant to seek [adjustment ][of the ][Award ][amount ][in]suit no.35/1994 in respondent's execution proceedings no.2001200o [and ][to saisfy ][the]respondent's decree for the remaining amount failing which [warrant ][of ][attachment]shall revive to the extent of ttre amouot and the execution proceedings shall [proceed]under law. The second appeal is also acordingly disposed of.

At this stage it was pointed out by respondents' counsel that this court byorder dated 18.12.2001 passed in FAO [(OS) ]534/mol had required [BIFR ][not to insist]on respondent depositing Rs.5O lacs or so in view of the [pendency ]of [respondent's]objections against award dated 29.9.1993 in suit no.35/1994 before [this ]court. [This]direction sha1l continue to remain in forcetill 31.1.?104 by which time respondent [is]expected to obtain orrders on its objections against the award. Should there begnydelay in disposing of these objections respondent can approach the court by anappropriate remedy and seek requisite orders.

December2,?m3.mg