M/S. CONTINENTAL INDIA PVT. LTD. v. GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAYS ADMINISTRATION & ORS.

1. The present Execution Petition has been filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[1] read with Order XXI Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,, seeking execution of the Award dated 01.05.2025[3].

2. Ms. Monisha Handa, learned counsel for the Decree Holder, submits that although the amount awarded has been duly paid by the Judgement Debtors, the costs awarded under Paragraph 15(iv) of the Award remain outstanding and unpaid to the Decree Holder. The relevant extract of the said paragraph reads as follows: Act CPC

3. Learned counsel for the Decree Holder relies upon the tabular statement, which is set out in the chart prepared by the Decree Holder/claimant therein, showing the payments made in respect of the lis as between the parties. The chart reads as follows:

4. Learned counsel for the Decree Holder candidly submits that the table reflects costs incurred not only in the arbitral proceedings but also before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and that such amounts would need to be excluded from the relief sought. Accordingly, while the original claim pertained to a total sum of ₹16,33,800/-, she confines the present claim solely to the costs incurred in the arbitral proceedings, restricting it to an amount of ₹9,28,300/-.

5. Learned counsel for the Decree Holder further draws the attention of this Court to the various invoices and memos that were raised during the arbitral proceedings, which form part of the arbitral record and are also placed on record in the present proceedings. Therefore, she submits that, in view of the Award stipulating payment of costs, the Decree Holder is entitled to a sum of ₹9,28,300/-, being the costs incurred in the arbitral proceedings.

6. Per contra, Ms. Swati Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Judgement Debtors, controverts the aforesaid submissions and places reliance upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in H.P. Cotton Textile Mills Ltd. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd[4]., dated 03.11.2023.

7. Learned counsel for the Judgement Debtor, in particular, places reliance upon Paragraphs 10 and 11 thereof, to submit that the present attempt is, in effect, to realise costs that were never quantified in the Award, which, in light of the said judgment, is clearly impermissible. The relevant extracts of paragraphs 10 and 11 of H.P. Cotton Textile Mills Ltd (supra) read as follows:

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and, with their able assistance, perused the material on record.

9. As is manifest, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the Judgement Debtors was premised on the fact that the costs had not been quantified, which position persisted owing to the failure of the parties to adduce the requisite proof; consequently, in execution proceedings, the Court, being precluded from going behind the Award or permitting the production of additional evidence to cure such deficiencies and enable subsequent quantification of costs, resulted in the rejection of the Petition.