Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Mahesh Rambhau Patil and others, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging two orders passed by the executing court in ARD No.284 of 2019. The first order dated 13th September 2022 allowed the decree-holder's application for preparing a schedule of the place, date, and time of proclamation of sale to be published in the daily Lokmat for sale of the property by public auction. The second order dated 25th November 2022 approved the draft proclamation of sale of the attached/mortgaged property and fixed the auction sale at the location of the property on 15th December 2022 at 11:00 a.m. The background facts reveal that Petitioner No.1 had obtained a loan of Rs.40 lakhs from Respondent No.1-Company in 2016, secured by two mortgage deeds over a plot of land. The petitioners repaid only Rs.8,72,000/- and defaulted on the balance. Consequently, the respondent initiated arbitration proceedings, resulting in an award dated 14th April 2018 for Rs.15,93,000/- in favor of the company. The decree-holder then filed execution application ARD No.284 of 2019. The petitioners contended that the orders were passed without proper notice and that the property was undervalued. However, the High Court examined the record and found that the executing court had followed the procedure under Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court noted that the petitioners had been given opportunities to participate but had failed to do so. The High Court held that the orders did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or illegality warranting interference under Article 227. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Proclamation of Sale - Order 21 Rule 66, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The executing court allowed the decree-holder's application for preparing schedule of proclamation of sale and approved the draft proclamation of sale. The petitioners challenged these orders under Article 227. The High Court held that the orders were passed in accordance with law and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Arbitration - Execution of Award - Applicability of CPC - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 36 - The execution of an arbitration award is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The executing court has the power to order sale of property in execution of the award. The court's orders for proclamation of sale were within its jurisdiction. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders passed by the executing court for preparing schedule of proclamation of sale and approving the draft proclamation of sale suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Execution of arbitration award
- Proclamation of sale
- Order 21 Rule 66 CPC
- Jurisdictional error
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 227
