M/S MISRA AND CO.versusDAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION

                             [2017] 8 S.C.R. 852


A                           MIS MISRA AND CO.

                                     v.

                   DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION
                       (Civil Appeal No. I 0502 of2017)
B
                             AUGUST 16,2017

              [A.K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.J

           Government litigation - Prolonging of - Contract between
C   appellant and respondent-public sector corporation - Award by
    Arbitrator against the Corporation - Civil Court vide order dated
    16.03.1991 passed decree in terms of the award - Application by
    appellant on 19.07.2000 for drawing of decree - Preparation of
    decree directed by Court on 21.02.2003 - Application for execution
D   of decree by appellant on 30.06.2006 - Objection by Corporation
    that execution is barred by limitation - Trial court held the execution
    to be barred by limitation - Challenge before High Court, dismissed
    - On appeal, held: Public sector institutions should not enter into
    prolonged litigation and spend considerable sums of public money
    in cases which should have been adjusted by conciliatory and wise
E   attitudes - In the facts of the case, award of the arbitrator was
    made rule of the Court on 16.3.91 and the Court decreed the award
    - However, neither the Corporation complied with the decree nor
    chose to file an appeal - It raised various objections at every stage
    which precluded the appellant from taking fruits of decree till now
F   - Further, even according to the respondent, limitation period of
    twelve years had not run out from 16. 03.1991 - Corporation to
    come up with conciliatory proposal to compensate the appellant -
    Code of Civil Procedure, ·1908 - Or.XX. r.6A.

          Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Rasal Singh and
G         others (1976) 2 SCC 179 - relied on.

          West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation
          v. Swadesh Agro Farming and Storage Pvt. Ltd. and
          others, 1999 (8) SCC 315 : [1999) 2 Suppl. SCR 399 -
          referred to.
H
                                     852
MIS MISRA AND CO. v. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION                                 853


                          Case Law Reference                                    A
(1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 399           referred to              Para 7
(1976) 2 sec 179                  relied on                Para 11
     CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CiviIAppeal No. 10502
of2017.
                                                                                B
      From the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2016 of the High Court
of Calcutta in C.O 3033 of2015
      Siddhartha Chowdhury, Adv. for the Respondent.
      Petitioner-in-person.
      The following Order of the Court was delivered by                         c
                                 ORDER
       ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against
the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 09. 08.2016 by which the
application under Article 227 filed by appellant, challenging the order
and judgment dated 06.07.2015 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), D
Durgapur has been dismissed. The appellant is a decree holder whose
application to execute the decree has been rejected as barred by time
which order has been affirmed by the High Court by the above mentioned
judgment. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant
has come up in this appeal. The respondent to the appeal is a public E
sector corporation, namely, Damodar Valley Corporation(hereinafter
referred to as 'Corporation').
        2. The present is a classic example of ill effects of prolonging
litigation by parties and specially, when one of the party is a public sector
corporation. The brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding this appeal
                                                                                 F
are:
       3. The appellant was given a contract for construction of a new
administrative building for the Corporation in the year 1983. The disputes
and differences arose between the parties. The appellant requested for
appointment of an arbitrator, which was not acceeded to by the
Corporation, an arbitrator was appointed by the Civil Court who gave an          G
award dated 24.05.1988, awarding a sum of Rs.5,78,873/-. The award
was filed in the Civil Court and various objections were raised by the
Corporation in the Court. The Civil Court vide its order dated 16.03.1991
after rejecting the objections of the Corporation accepted the award
dated 24.05.1988 and decree was passed in terms of the award with                H
854           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. Neither any payment was
  made by the Corporation, after the award nor any appeal was filed against
  the order of the Court dated 16 .03 .1991.
         4. An application was filed by appellant on 19.07.2000, stating
  that even after the award having been accepted by the Court on
B 16.03.1991 payment has not been made. The application stated that
  amount payable up to 30.06.2000 including interest is Rs.16,39,063/-.
  The appellant prayed that the order be passed drawing up a formal decree
  in the light ofand as consequences of the final order dated 16.03.1991,
  so that decree can be put into execution for realization of outstanding
  dues as on 30:06.2000, amounting to Rs. 16,39,063/-. The above
C application filed by appellant dated 19.07.2000 was objected by the
  Corporation. Although, in the application dated 19 .07 .2000 the
  Corporation appeared on 12.09.2000 but took several adjournments
  thereafter. As per the provisions ofC.P.C. Order XX Rule 6A, the decree
  was to be drawn within fifteen days, but due to objections and
D adjournments taken by the respondent, the Court could direct for
  preparation oftl!e decree only on 21.02.2003.
           5. The appellant filed an application for execution of decree on
  30.06.2006. An objection was filed by the respondent to the execution
  application. The Executing Court transfered the decree to the Court of
E Civil Judge (Senior Division) Durgapur, District Bardwan by the order
  dated 09.06.2008. Before the transferee court an objection under Section
  47 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. was filed by the Corporation
  raising various objections. One of the objections raised was that execution
  application has been filed after more than fifteen yeras from the date of
  judgment & decree i.e. 16.03.1991 hence, the execution is barred by
F limitation.
         6. The appellant filed reply to the objection of the respondent and
  submitted that execution is not barred by limitation. One of the submissions
  made was that, decree was finally prepared only on 21.02.2003 hence,
  execution application is not barred by time. The trial court after hearing
G the parties held that the decree was enforceable on 16.03.1991 and
  money execution case having been filed on 30.06.2006, which is beyond
  the prescribed time limit of twelve years hence, the execution is barred
  by time. Against the aforesaid order of the trial court dated 06.07.2015,
  an application under Article 227 was filed in the Civil Revisional
H Jurisdict!on of the Calcutta High Court by the appellant which has been
M/S MISRA AND CO. v. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION                            855
               [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

dismissed by the High Court against which present appeal has been A
filed.
       7. Learned counsel for the parties raised various submissions in
support of their respective cases. On the one hand learned counsel for
the appellant submits that the respondent had not filed an appeal and
was raising objection at every stage from the stage of appointment of B
arbitrator against the application for drawing a formal decree and lastly
filed an objection under Section 47 C.P.C. after execution was transferred.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
time taken for preparation of final decree cannot be excluded for
computing the limitation as provided under Article 136 of the Limitation
Act, 1963. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that case is fully C
covered by judgment of this Court reported in West Bengal Essential
Commodities Supply Corporation versus Swadesh Agro Farming
and Storage Pvt. Ltd. and others, 1999 (8) SCC 315 where it was
held that limitation period of twelve years starts from the date of the
pronouncement of the judgment and not from the date of the signing and D
drawing up of the decree.
       8. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused
the record. Before, we enter into the merits of this case and the legal
contention raised by parties, it is pertinant to notice certain features of
the case. The present is a case which arose out of arbitration proceedings E
under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Arbitration Act, 1940 was enacted
with the object of speedy adjudication of disputes arising out of contractual
obligation of the parties providing a speedy mechanism for resolving the
dispute by arbitration. The application was filed by appellant on
23.06.1986 for appointment of an arbitrator which was allowed on
 10.01.1987. The appointment of arbitrator was modified on 31.08.1987, F
thereafter, award was given on 24.05.1988 which was submitted to the
Court on 28.08.1988. Various objections were filed by the Corporation
to the award and ultimatlely on 16.03.1991, the award was made rule of
the Court. The operative portion of the order dated 16.03.1991 is as
follows:                                                                      G
                                  ORDERED
         That the objection of D. V.C. against the award submitted by
       the Ld. Arbitrator S.N. Chanda is rejected on contest. The
       said award dated 24.05.1988 by Sri. S. N. Chanda be accepted
                                                                            H
856            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017) 8 S.C.R.


A          and decreed accordingly in terms of laid down by the Ld.
           Arbitrator. The D. V. C. is to comply with the decree as per
           award. The decree shall carry interest @10% per annum till
           full realization.
                                                               Sdl- Illegible
B                                                       Asstt. Dist. Judge. "
         9. Although, the Court made the award rule of the Court and
  decreed with interest at the rate of I 0 per cent per annum, neither the
  respondent, public sector corporation complied with the judgment and
  decree nor chose to file an appeal. When the appellant filed an application
C on 19.07.2000 for preparation of final decree so that appellant could
  realise the amount of Rs. 16,39,063/-as on 30.06.2000 alongwith future
  interest, the said application was objected by the Corporation.
            I 0. Order XX Rule 6A C.P.C. provides for preparation of decree
      which is to the following effect: -
D
            "6A. Preparation of decree.-(/) Every endeavour shall be
            made to ensure that the decree is drawn up as expeditiously
            as possible and, in any case, within fifteen days from the date
            on which the judgment is pronounced.
            (2) An appeal may be preferred against the decree without
 E
            filing a copy of the decree and in such a case the copy made
            available to the party by the court shall for the purposes of
             rule 1 of Order XL/ be treated as the decree. But as soon as
             the decree is drawn, the judgment shall cease to have the
             effect of a decree for the purposes of execution or for any
 F           other purpose. "
          11. The provision thus provides for preparation of decree within
   fifteen days from the date on which the judgment is pronounced. In the
   present case, due to several objections raised by respondent No.I, the
   decree could be directed to be prepared only on 21.02.2003. When the
 G execution application was filed, the objection was filed that the decree is
   barred by time on 30.06.2006. The respondent public sector corporation
   by raising various objections at every stage which were rejected at
   different stages successfully precluded the appellant from taking fruits
   of decree up to now. Obections raised by the Corporation that execution
   is barred by time found favour by executing Court as well as by the High
 H
 MIS MISRA AND CO. v. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION                                 857
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Court. Whether the public sector corporation when party to a litigation A
which involves a money decree can be allowed to prolong the litigation
which may cause hardship to both the parties is one of the issues which
has cropped up for consideration. We are reminded of weighty
observations made by V.R. Krishna lyer,J. in Municipal Corporation
of Delhi versus Rasa/ Singh and others, (1976) 2 SCC 179 where B
following was stated:
       " .... Poor reflection on 'principles' prompting public sector
       undertakings and on prudence in litigation policy and outlay
       and the scant regard for the Supreme Court being approached
       on supreme issues. These observations are an expression of
       this Courts allergy to the frequency with which, in the name C
       of 'principle', the State and public sector institutions spiral
       up the litigation ladder and spend considerable sums of public
       money in cases which should have been adjusted by
       imaginative, conciliatory and wise attitudes, while professing
       profound concern for the welfare of Labour. An aware D
       employer should be the last litigant, costs in Court being
       unproductive and even counter-productive."
         12. This Court has time and again emphasised that public sector
 institutions should not enter into prolonged litigtion and spend considerable
 sums of public money in cases which should have been adjusted by                E
 conciliatory and wise attitudes. The present is a case where arbitration
 award was made rule of the Court on 16.03 .1991 and the Court also
 passed an order for payment of interest at the rate of l 0 per cent per
 annum. The Corporation neither filed an appeal nor obeyed the decree
 and even on the application for preparation of decree which was filed on
 19 .11.2000 raised various objections and in preparation of decree more         F
 than two and half years time was elapsed whereas Order XX Rule 6A
 C.P.C. provides for preparation of decree in any case within fifteen
 days from the pronouncement ofjudgment. On the date when application
 was filed by appellant for preparation of the decree, the due amount as
 on 30.06.2000 was to the sum of Rs. 16,39,063/-. Even according to the          G
 case of the respondent time period of twelve years had not run out from
·16.03.1991 by that time. Even according to the case of the respondent,
 the time ran out thereafter.
       13. Whether in the facts of the present case we should not ask
the respondent to compensate the appellant, is the question which comes          H
858            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017) 8 S.C.R.


A to our mind? Whether the Corporation when it did not file an appeal
  challenging order dated 16.03.1991 by which, award was made rule of
  the Court with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum, should not
  have complied the decree to save the Corporation from future interest
  liability which was reckoning from day to day? Should Corporation be
B allowed to take benefit of prolonging of the litigation by various frivilous
  objections taken from time to time at every stage?
        14. We are thus of the view that in facts of the present case,
  Corporation be called upon to come up with conciliatory proposal as has
  been observed by this Court in M unicipa/ Corporation ofDelhi (supra).
  We thus before proceeding further in the matter call upon to Corporation
C to adopt the conciliatory method and come up with a proposal to
  compensate the appellant in facts of the present case.
            15. Let this appeal be listed after six weeks to enable the
      Corporation to file an affidavit in the light of the observations, as made
      above. List after six weeks for further hearing.
D

      Divya Pandey                                               Matter adjourned.