(1.) This Writ Petition is preferred by the judgment debtor challenging the order passed by the Executing Court rejecting his objections regarding maintainability of the Execution Petition. The undisputed facts are that, the parties to the execution proceedings had agreed for referring the matter to an arbitrator to resolve the dispute. The arbitrator entered appearance and conducted arbitral proceedings at Bombay and also passed the award at Bombay. The said award is sought to be executed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysore in Execution No. 474/2011. On service of notice of execution proceedings, the judgment debtor entered appearance and filed an application under Section 38 CPC contending that the arbitral award cannot be enforced straightaway by the Court at Mysore; Execution Petition ought to have been filed before the jurisdictional Court at Bombay and it could be transferred to the Court at Mysore on a transfer petition and only then Court at Mysore could enforce the award.
(2.) The contention of the Judgment Debtor was rejected by the Executing Court on the ground that Section 38 CPC applies to a case where a decree is passed by a Court and such a decree is sought to be enforced in another Court. The said provision is not applicable to a proceeding where execution of an award passed by an Arbitrator is sought as the same is only a deemed decree. The Court also held that the award passed by the arbitrator at Bombay is executable in Mysore where the judgment debtor is residing. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of N. Nagaraj v. M/s. Motilal Oswal Securities Limited, W.P. Nos. 38220-221/2010 decided on 27.6.2012 contends that, the Execution Petition ought to have been filed in the Court at Bombay and after obtaining transfer, it could be executed in a Court at Mysore. Since the said procedure is not followed, the Execution Petition is not maintainable.