Titagarh Logistics Infrastructure Private Limited vs. Durgapur Freight Terminal Private Limited And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Titagarh Logistics Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., is the award holder in an arbitration proceeding. They filed an application for an interim award of Rs. 2,36,00,000/-. The Arbitral Tribunal passed an interim award for Rs. 2,00,00,000/- along with GST and interest at 18% per annum, payable by 28.02.2021. Upon the award debtors' failure to pay, the petitioner filed an execution case before the Commercial Court, Alipore, on 25.08.2021. The petitioner contended that as the execution case was filed within two years of the interim award, no notice was required to be served on the award debtors under Order XXI Rule 22 of the CPC. However, the Executing Court insisted on serving notice, passing orders on 25.08.2021, 15.09.2021, and 10.11.2021. The petitioner filed this revision challenging these orders.

Held

The Court held that the orders under challenge did not constitute a "case decided" as stipulated by Section 115 of the CPC. The Court reasoned that these orders were procedural in nature, aimed at regulating the further progress of the execution case, and did not adjudicate upon the rights and obligations of the parties in controversy. The Executing Court's direction to serve notice, even if technically incorrect, did not amount to an illegal exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity, nor would it result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court noted that the orders dated 15.09.2021 and 10.11.2021 were merely directing compliance with procedural steps, such as serving copies of applications and filing affidavits of service. Therefore, the revisional application was found to be not maintainable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the orders passed by the Ld. Judge Commercial Court, Alipore, on 25.08.2021, 15.09.2021, and 10.11.2021, which directed the service of notice on the award debtors in an execution case filed within two years of the interim award, constitute a "case decided" under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, thereby making the revision maintainable. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Executing Court's insistence on serving notice on the Opposite Parties/Award Debtors, despite the execution case being filed within two years of the interim award, was in violation of Order XXI Rule 22 of the CPC. They contended that this procedural direction was erroneous and prayed for the setting aside of the impugned orders. Opposite Parties' arguments: The Opposite Parties argued that the Ld. Court below exercised its discretion and acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice by desiring notice to be served. They contended that the impugned orders did not affect the petitioner's rights or cause prejudice, and importantly, that these orders did not decide any cause or issue between the parties, thus a revision was not maintainable.