TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 2034
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case of the applicant. Learned counsel for non-applicant/petitioner has opposed the captioned IA. However, without taking any hyper technical view, the captioned IA is disposed of as allowed subject to all just exceptions in view of the reasons mentioned in the captioned IA. IA is accordingly disposed of. IA No.16378/2018 u/O I R 10 r/w Section 151 CPC moved by applicant Deepali Design and Exhibits Pvt. Ltd. Reply to the captioned IA filed by petitioner and rejoinder thereto has also been filed by the applicant. Judgment debtor has not filed the reply to the captioned IAs. Thus pleadings in the captioned IAs are complete. Arguments already heard. Through the captioned IA, the applicant M/s Deepali Designs and Exhibits Pvt. Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred to as consortium/JV) was not incorporated as a separate legal entity and was only referred to as a trade name. b) Consortium participated in the bidding and was issued letter of intent placing order for bill of quantities by the Erstwhile Organising Committee Common Wealth Game, 2010, Delhi on 05.05.2010 and a Turnkey Contract was executed by the committee with the consortium on 02.06.2010. c) Certain disputes arose between the consortium and the committee and on 05.07.2012, Arbitral Tribunal was constituted which commenced its proceedings by passing its first order. d) M/s Deepali Designs and Exhibits Pvt. Ltd. filed application for termination of arbitration proceedings on 23.10.2012, which was withdrawn on 19.01.2013 and an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ract dated 02.06.2010 and its Managing director had signed the contract. It is further argued that M/s Deepali Designs & Exhibits was made a party to arbitration proceedings on its application, vide order dated 22.04.2013. It is also stated that the claim of M/s Deepali Designs & Exhibits has also been adjudicated in the award dated 03.12.2015. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of non-applicant/decree holder that PICO Hong Kong was lead member of the Consortium and the execution petition has been duly filed. That the consortium had filed arbitration proceedings and award is in favour of the consortium. That the award is also not divisible. That there is no privity of contract between the applicant and the judgment debtor. From perusal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e constituents of the consortium and not independently. This view is fortified by the fact that the award mentions the claimant as the consortium. The tone and tenor of the award would show that the Hon'ble Tribunal had not considered the applicant as the claimant. Thus, at this stage of execution proceedings applicant cannot seek impleadment as co-decree holder. It is also the settled proposition of law that although an application for impleadment can be moved at any stage of the proceedings, however once the dispute is over and decree is affirmed by the appellate court, petition u/O I R 10 CPC does not lie. Reliance can be placed on the pronouncement in 'Jasdeep Singh Vs. M.S. Sandhu (2001) 1 PLR 760 (P&H)'. iii)Furthermore, the pr....