2018 (8) TMI 2123 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court sets aside High Court order appointing Chartered Accountant during execution proceedings

Kohinoor Transporters Versus. State of Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order directing the appointment of a Chartered Accountant during execution ... Appointment of Chartered Accountant - Jurisdiction of a civil revision when Under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for such appointment - HELD THAT:- The High Court has acted in manifest excess of its jurisdiction while directing the appointment of a Chartered Accountant for the purpose of determining as to whether the decretal debt is to be marked as satisfied. The execution proceeding is pending before the Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun and, as we have noticed, various orders have been passed thereon from time to time. The issue as to whether the decree has been discharged or satisfied has to be determined by the Executing Court Under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Executing Court must execute the decree as it stands without adding anything to it - The High Court has acted in excess of jurisdiction by directing the appointment of a Chartered Accountant, particularly at this stage. The impugned order of the High Court dated 18 September 2017 set aside - appeal allowed. Issues:1. Jurisdiction of High Court in directing the appointment of a Chartered Accountant during execution proceedings.2. Challenge to the order of the High Court directing the appointment of a Chartered Accountant.3. Dispute regarding the decretal debt and satisfaction of the decree.4. Role of Executing Court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.5. Appeal against the order of the High Court.Issue 1: Jurisdiction of High Court in directing the appointment of a Chartered AccountantThe dispute arose from an arbitral proceeding under the Arbitration Act 1940, resulting in an award in 1984. The High Court directed the appointment of a Chartered Accountant to examine the arrears claimed by the decree holder and the accounts submitted by the judgment debtor. The Appellant challenged this order, arguing that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by appointing a Chartered Accountant during execution proceedings, which should be determined by the Executing Court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Issue 2: Challenge to the High Court's orderThe Appellant contended that the High Court erred in directing the appointment of a Chartered Accountant for three reasons: exceeding jurisdiction, lack of challenge to previous orders of the Executing Court, and treating the interim order as final relief during the stay application. The State, on the other hand, argued that the Appellant was attempting to inflate its decretal claim, emphasizing that the due amount had been deposited earlier, and the Executing Court should not revisit the decree.Issue 3: Dispute over decretal debt and decree satisfactionThe Supreme Court noted that the High Court's order appointing a Chartered Accountant to determine the satisfaction of the decretal debt was beyond its jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the Executing Court must decide on the discharge or satisfaction of the decree under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court highlighted that the High Court's intervention by appointing a Chartered Accountant was inappropriate at that stage of the execution proceedings.Issue 4: Role of Executing Court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil ProcedureThe Court reiterated that the Executing Court has the authority to execute the decree as it stands without any additions. It emphasized that the matters related to admission of dues and satisfaction of the decree should be addressed within the execution proceedings. The Court clarified that disputes regarding the balance of dues should be properly handled by the Executing Court and not by appointing external experts like Chartered Accountants.Issue 5: Appeal against the High Court's orderThe Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order directing the appointment of a Chartered Accountant. It instructed the High Court to expedite the disposal of the Civil Revision within three months. The Court highlighted the need for a speedy resolution of the dispute arising from the contract and award dating back to 1980 and 1984, respectively. No costs were awarded in the appeal's disposal.This detailed analysis of the Supreme Court's judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Court's reasoning in resolving the dispute related to the appointment of a Chartered Accountant during execution proceedings.