Summary
The Supreme Court set aside an interim revisional order appointing a chartered accountant to determine satisfaction of an arbitral-award decree. That question belonged to the executing court under Section 47 CPC, which had to enforce the decree as it stood. The Court left the disputed balance and alleged admission for execution proceedings, and requested disposal of the pending revision within three months after its order was placed on record.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could appoint a chartered accountant at the interim revision stage to determine satisfaction of the decree.
- Which court should decide the disputed balance and satisfaction of the decretal debt.
Provisions considered
- Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Questions of execution, discharge and satisfaction had to be determined by the executing court. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the accountant appointment at this stage. (¶¶ 5, 7)
Held
- The executing court must determine whether the decree has been discharged or satisfied and execute it as it stands, without adding to it. In the pending execution proceedings, the High Court’s interim direction appointing a chartered accountant to determine satisfaction was a manifest excess of jurisdiction. (¶ 7)
- Whether the State admitted the claimed balance was disputed and was not resolved by the Supreme Court. The balance, calculations and satisfaction issues were to be addressed in execution proceedings. (¶ 5–7)
- The accountant-appointment order was set aside. Given the age of the contract and award, the High Court was requested to dispose of the civil revision expeditiously and within three months of a certified copy of the Supreme Court order being placed on its record. (¶ 8)
Result
Appeal allowed; interim chartered-accountant appointment set aside. Execution questions left to the executing court; High Court requested to dispose of the revision within three months of receipt of the certified order, without costs.