R.Sampath v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies CorporationLtd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 03.12.2007 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P.(NPD)No.1861 of 2003 R.Sampath .. Petitioner vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies CorporationLtd., rep. By Senior Manager,Chennai Region, No.71, Conransmith Road,Chennai – 86. .. Respondent PRAYER:Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of theconstitution of India against the order in A.O.P.No.5 of 2000 dated7.11.2003 passed in E.A.No.6272 of 2001 in E.P.No.2042 of 2001 by thelearned X Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.T.S.BaskaranFor Respondent : Mr.R.Ponnusamy ****** O R D E RThe Civil Revision Petitioner herein is the first respondent inTr.O.P.No.394 of 2006 on the file of the High Court, Madras.Originally the Tr.O.P.No.394 of 2006 was numbered as Arb.O.P.No.41 of2002 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai andlater, the same was transferred to the file of the High Court for trialas per order dated 21.01.2006 and made in O.S.A.No.102 of 2004 readwith R.O.C.No.1542 of 2006 (O.S.) dated 26.04.2006. The Tr.O.P. No.394of 2006 was filed by the first respondent in the Revision Petitionviz., T.N. Civil Supplies Corporation Limited as the petitioner. Thesaid petition was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act 1996, to set aside the Award.2.It appears that the Revision Petitioner has obtained decree forRs.4,23,174/- together with interest at 12% per annum from 30.11.2000on Rs.4,23,174/- refund of security deposited and Earnest Money Depositof Rs.80,000/- and costs of Rs.8,000/- against the Respondent/JudgmentDebtor on 20th June 2001.3.As a Decree Holder/Award Holder, the revision petitioner filedE.P.No.2042 of 2001 before the learned X Assistant Judge, City CivilCourt for attachment of movable property of the Respondent/JudgmentDebtor/T.N. Civil Supplies Corporation and the same was ordered by theCourt below on 19.11.2001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.It is the case of the Revision Petitioner/Decree Holder that theRespondent/Corporation prevented the bailiff from attaching movablesand therefore, the police aid was granted on 23rd November 2001 by theCourt below.5.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner contends that on27th November 2001 when the agent of the Revision Petitioner accompaniedthe Court bailiff to attach the movable property of the Respondent/JD,the Respondent/Corporation gave a cheque for Rs.5,57,744.66/- to theRevision Petitioner/Decree Holder/Award Holder in favour of theRegistrar, City Civil Court, Madras to the credit of the E.P.No.2042 of2001.6.The Revision Petitioner/Award Holder before the trial Courtfiled E.A.No.6272 of 2001 praying for payment out order of the amountof Rs.5,57,744.65/-, which was in Court deposit to the credit of theE.P.No.2042 of 2001 in Ar. Case No.5 of 2000. The said E.A.No.6272 of2001 was allowed on 06.12.2001 by the Court below unilaterally. Beforeallowing the E.A.No.6272 of 2001, no notice was ordered to be issued bythe Court. C.M.P.No.203 of 2002 was filed by theRespondent/Corporation before the learned X Assistant Judge, City CivilCourt praying for a stay of further proceedings of Execution Petitionin E.P.No.2042 of 2001 in the Arbitration Award dated 20.06.2001 in Ar.Case No. 5 of 2000 and on 01.11.2002, the records of the case were sentto the Principal Judge, City Civil Court as per the order of thePrincipal Judge dated 18.10.2002.7.E.A.No.6087 of 2001 was filed by the Respondent/JD praying toset aside the order dated 19.11.2001 passed in the E.P.No.2042 of 2001in Arb. Case No.5 of 2001 on the file of the learned X Assistant Judge,City Civil Court, Chennai.8.It is significant to point out that in E.A.No.6272 of 2001, acheque for Rs.5,57,744.55/- in favour of the Revision petitioner/DecreeHolder was ordered to be issued on proper identification by the Courtbelow.9.The Respondent/JD in its counter to the E.A.No.6272 of 2001 inArb.Case No.5 of 2000 has inter alia stated that there is no executabledecree and accordingly, E.P.No.2042 of 2001 is not maintainable and isliable to be dismissed and further, E.A.No.6272 of 2001 payment out ofRs.5,57,744.65/- ordered on 06.12.2001 without issuing notice was setaside by the High Court in C.R.P.No.334 of 2002 order dated 18.09.2002and therefore, the amount which was received by the petitioner inE.A.No.6272 of 2001 was liable to be re-deposited into Court and theCivil Revision Petitioner/Petitioner in E.P.No.2042 of 2001 has notretained the said sum and prayed for a direction to deposit the sum ofRs.5,57,744.65/- received in E.A.No.6272 of 2001 into Court, etc.,.10.The learned X Assistant Judge has passed orders in E.A.No.6272of 2001 on 07.11.2003 inter alia observed that the pendency ofArb.O.P.No.41 of 2002 was accepted by both sides and the order passed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in Ar. C.No.5 of 2000 has not reached finality and therefore, theRevision Petitioner would not get the amount deposited and therefore,passed the order directing the Civil Revision Petitioner to re-depositthe amount of Rs.5,57,744.65/- received by him within one month fromthe date of the said order.11.The Tr.O.P.No.394 of 2006 filed by the Respondent/JD/Petitionerwas dismissed by the Honourable High Court on 05.03.2007.12.It is not out of place to point out that in Tr.O.P.No.394 of2006 order dated 05.03.2007 passed by the Honourable High Court inParagraph No.17, it is observed as follows:-"In the case on hand, there is a clear finding by thearbitrator that the labourers are the workmen of thepetitioner corporation and in such circumstances, as rightlyheld by 2nd respondent, the petitioner corporation could notexpect the 1st respondent to meet out the increased demand ofthe labourers of more than double rate of approved rate fixedby the corporation."13.It cannot be gain said that after passing of the orders inE.A.No.6272 of 2001 by the trial Court on 07.11.2003 directing theRevision Petitioner to re-deposit the amount of Rs.5,57,744.65/- soreceived, within one month from the date of the order and in view ofthe subsequent development of Tr.O.P.No.394 of 2006 (ArbitrationO.P.No.41 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court,Chennai) having been dismissed by the Honourable High Court on05.03.2007 it is not necessary for the Civil Revision Petitioner to re-deposit the amount of Rs.5,57,744.65/- so received by him, since he isentitled for that amount legally because of the changed circumstance.14.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Respondent/JDsubmits that as against the said orders passed by the Honourable HighCourt in Tr.O.P.No.394 of 2006 dated 05.03.2007, theRespondent/Corporation has filed copy application to get the order copyand to prosecute further proceedings and that the copy of the order hasnot been furnished to the Corporation till date. It is pertinent topoint out that when the Tr.O.P.No.394 of 2006 filed by theRespondent/Corporation was dismissed by the Honourable High Court on05.03.2007, certainly the balance of convenience is in favour of theRevision Petitioner/First Respondent/Decree Holder. As and whenfurther proceedings are taken by the Respondent/Corporation /JD asagainst the orders passed in Tr.O.P.No.394 of 2006 dated 05.03.2007 andif the Respondent Corporation succeeds in the further proceedings to beinitiated by it, it is always open to the Respondent Corporation toseek for restitution in regard to the amount of Rs.5,57,744.65/-received by the Revision Petitioner in the trial Court in accordancewith law in the considered opinion of this Court.15.In fine, in the light of the detailed discussions mentionedsupra, this Court comes to a conclusion that the Civil RevisionPetition needs to be allowed and accordingly, the same is allowed to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ meet the ends of justice. The order passed by the learned X AssistantJudge, City Civil Court, Chennai in E.A.No.6272 of 2001 dated07.11.2003 is set aside. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarvriToThe X Assistant Judge,City Civil Court,Chennai.+1cc to M/s. Chitra Sampath, Advocate Sr 71341+1cc to Mr.R.Ponnusamy, Advocate Sr 71413RS(CO)km/6.12.C.R.P. NPD 1861 of 2003