- (1.) Decree holder Food Corporation of India has filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 21.12.2007, Annexure P/2 passed by executing court i.e. learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar thereby allowing objections preferred by respondents/judgment debtors and thereby dismissing execution petition filed by the petitioner-decree holder. Harbans Lal since deceased (predecessor of respondents no. 2 to 6) was running M/s Shankar Rice & General Mills (respondent no. 1) as its sole proprietor. Petitioner supplied paddy for milling to respondent no. 1 - Mill. The Mill had furnished two bank guarantees of Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 30,000/-, totaling Rs. 1,80,000/- to the petitioner. Dispute arose between the parties and was referred to Arbitrator who gave award dated 29.2.1988. Operative part of the said award, as reproduced in impugned order is reproduced hereunder: - After adjustment of claims and counter claims, the contractor (M/s Shankar Rice & General Mills) is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,10,663.56. This amount is to be adjusted against the bank guarantees of Rs. One lac, if surviving. The remaining amount after adjustment from the bank guarantee or the entire balance amount awarded as the case may be is to be paid by the contractor within period of four months failing which he will be liable to pay the interest @ 12% per annum till payment or award made rule of the court.
(2.) Aforesaid award was made rule of the court under Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short, the Act) by the trial court vide order dated 20.11.1996. Appeal against the same preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 6.11.2000.
(3.) Respondent no. 1 - Mill filed suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner herein restraining the petitioner from encashing the aforesaid bank guarantees. In that case, temporary injunction to this effect was granted by the trial court but was later on vacated. Thereafter the petitioner encashed the aforesaid guarantees. Suit for permanent injunction was amended and is said to have been ultimately decreed in favour of respondent no. 1 for release of balance amount of the bank guarantees.;