2019年5月17日，在The Executive Engineer vs M/S Gopinath Udyog P Ltd. Case No. : WP(C) 423/2012一案中，印度高哈蒂高等法院裁定，虽然涉案裁决由设于Guwahati地区的产业促进委员会作出，但该事实不能剥夺法院对其本有权审理的案件的管辖权。在本案中，涉案工程在Karimganj地区施工，故Karimganj地区法院对案件具有管辖权。
一、案情介绍
2005年5月20日，产业促进委员会作出一份裁决，根据1993年《关于向小规模和附属工业企业延期付款的利息法案》（以下简称“《利息法》”）指示公共卫生工程部门（以下简称公共卫生部门）向裁决债权人M/S Gopinath Udyog P Ltd.支付一笔款项。
根据《利息法》第6（2）条，产业促进委员会作出的裁决将与根据1996年《仲裁与调解法》作出的裁决得到同等对待，《法案》的规定将比照适用（As per Section 6(2) of the Act of 1993 an award passed by the Industry Facilitation Council is to be treated at par with an award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the provision of the said Act would apply mutatis mutandis.）
随后，裁决债权人向Karimganj地区法院请求执行该裁决。2010年12月16日，Karimganj地区法院签发了扣押令。根据Karimganj地区法院2011年8月11日的记录，该法院收到了一份请求给予3个月时间支付裁令金额的申请。因裁决未得到履行，2011年7月21日，Karimganj地区法院又签发了一份扣押令，该扣押令的附表显示，所扣押的财产包括公共卫生部门执行工程师（申请人）办公室的卡车、电脑等财务。于是，执行工程师向高哈蒂高等法院提出了异议。
二、当事人的观点
在本案中，申请人提出了以下观点：（1）裁决是由设于Guwahati地区的产业促进委员会作出，只有Guwahati地区法院才具有管辖权。因案件被提交不具有管辖权的Karimganj地区法院审理，故该法院作出的扣押令在法律上不能得到支持。（2）即使Karimganj地区法院具有管辖权，该法院也不得对作为执行工程师的申请人办公室下达命令。（3）在根据1996年《仲裁和调解法》第36条进行强制执行程序之前，必须提交《法案》第31（5）条所指裁决的副本。如果该先决条件没有满足，法院不得假定其具有审理案件的管辖权。（4）本案申请人并非Karimganj地区法院所进行的法律程序的当事人，申请人认为，不对非程序当事人执行命令或裁决是一项既定的法律原则。（5）在启动执行程序之前存在《民事诉讼法》第80条所规定的违反程序的行为，鉴于这种违反，整个程序都应失效。（6）关于申请的可维持性，申请人认为，可维持性问题在申请被接受时就已经提出，在申请被接受后，就不能再提出同样的问题。
为此，申请人援引了Sukalu RamGond v. State of M.P. and Others, (1994) 5 SCC 570案，Surya Dev Raiv. Ram Chander Rai, 2003 AIR SCW 3872案，Union of Indiav. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, (2005) 4 SCC 239案，State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Himachal Techno Engineersand Another, (2010)12 SCC 210案，State of Maharashtra and Others v.ARK Builders Private Limited, (2011) 4 SCC 616.案，以及BenarsiKrishna Committee and Others v. Karmyogi Shelters Private Limited, (2012) 9 SCC 496案以支持其观点。
被申请人则认为，申请人提出的申请本身不可维持，执行工程师不能代表公共卫生部门，如果确实有人受到了损害，受损害的也本应是公共卫生部门或总工程师，但阿萨姆邦和总工程师都未对程序提出异议。（By referring to the order dated 11.08.2011 of the learned District Judge, Karimganj it has been submitted that when the judgment debtor had filed a petition seeking 3 months time to make the payment, the present petition is barred by the doctrine of estoppel. As regards the ground relating to territorial jurisdiction, the work pertaining to the Award being situated at Karimganj and Hailakandi, the decree holder has the option to initiate proceeding for enforcement at Karimganj where the work in question was done.）被申请人还指出，当判决的债务人已提出申请，请求给予3个月的时间作出支付时，当前申请因禁反言原则而遭到禁止。（By referring to the order dated11.08.2011 of the learned District Judge, Karimganj it has been submitted thatwhen the judgment debtor had filed a petition seeking 3 months time to make thepayment, the present petition is barred by the doctrine of estoppel. As regardsthe ground relating to territorial jurisdiction, the work pertaining to theAward being situated at Karimganj and Hailakandi, the decree holder has theoption to initiate proceeding for enforcement at Karimganj where the work inquestion was done.）对于地域管辖权，被申请人援引诉讼法认为产生诉因的法院管辖权不能被禁止，并认为在本案中，与裁决有关的工程在Karimganj和Hailakandi实施，法令持有人有权选择在实施争议工程的Karimganj提起执行程序，Karimganj地区法院对案件具有管辖权。（Referring to the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned counsel submits that the jurisdiction of a Court cannot be barred under which the cause of action arises and in the instant case when the work in question pertained to that district, the learned Court of the District Judge, Karimganj had jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.）
三、法院的观点
首先，关于本案申请的可维持性问题，法院认为虽然其认为申请的可维持性问题具有一定的重要性，但申请已获准进行最终庭审，认为该申请不可诉的观点是不合理的（On the issue of maintainability of the writ petition, though this Court was of the opinion that the issue was of some importance, the writ petition having been admitted for final hearing, non-suiting the petition on the said ground would not be justified.）法院表示从案情来看，毫无疑问，根据《利息法》提出的最初请求针对是阿萨姆邦政府的公共卫生部门（there is no manner of doubt that the original claim under The Interest on Delayed Payments To Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, is against the PHE Department of the Govt. of Assam）。法院认为，由于涉案工程位于Karimganj地区，故本案诉因也属于Karimganj地区法院的管辖范围。法院意识到，因工业促进委员会仅设于Guwahati，根据1993年《利息法》提起的法律程序必须默认在Guwahati进行，但该事实不能剥夺法院对其本有权审理的案件的管辖权。（Since the work in question from where the claim has arisen pertains to the District of Karimganj, this Court is of the view that the cause of action is also within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, Karimganj. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the proceeding under the Act of 1993 have to be held at Guwahati on default as the Industry Facilitation Council is situated only at Guwahati and that fact cannot take away the jurisdiction of a Court which is otherwise empowered to try the case.）另外，当事人从未在Karimganj地区法院提出过管辖权异议，法院认为，鉴于所有上述事实和情况，申请人认为Karimganj地区法院缺乏管辖权的理由不能成立。（It is also being that the objection regarding jurisdiction was never raised before the learned Court below and in view of all the above facts and circumstances, the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, Karimganj cannot be sustained.）
如前所述，涉案裁决并非针对申请人的个人身份，而是针对整个公共卫生部门。从法律程序和命令可以看出，地区法院法官所处理的关于裁决和执行的案件都是当事人之间的法律程序。鉴于此，有关裁决的约束力的抗辩/异议不能成立。（As discussed above, the Award in question is not against the petitioner in his personal capacity but against the Department as a whole. It is seen from the proceedings and the order sheet that both the Award and the Execution case before the District Judge are inter-parte proceedings. In view of the same, the plea /objection regarding the binding effect of the award cannot be sustained.）涉案裁决是在当事人之间的法律程序中作出的针对公共卫生部门的裁决，总工程师在通讯中作出的关于支付裁决款项的指示充分表明，公共卫生部门不仅收到了裁决，而且已经意识到该裁决将被执行。不能理解的是，申请人以官方身份如何仅因扣押令涉及其办公室的物品而对程序提出异议。申请人以其官方身份通过征求部门的意见和执行裁决，还有其他措施可以克服扣押令。（The Award is against the Departmentin an inter-parte proceeding and the direction to pay the amount by the communication of the Chief Engineer amply demonstrates that the Department has not only received the award but also conscious of the fact that the same has to be implemented. It is also failed to be understood as to how the present petitioner in his official capacity would challenge the proceeding only because of the fact that attachment of materials of his office are involved. It is needless to mention that the present petitioner in his official capacity had other remedies available to overcome the attachment order by seeking the advice of the Department and fulfilling the award.）
法院认为，目前的程序不过是拖延执行程序的战术，这种做法是法院所极力反对的。地区法院所进行的是当事人之间的法律程序，在该程序中，如2011年8月11日作出的命令所示，公共卫生部门已提交了一份书面保证，该部门不能通过其执行工程师提起当前法律程序。（It appears that the present proceeding is nothing but a dilatory tactics to delay the execution which is deprecated by this Court. The proceeding before the learned District Judge being an inter-parte one in which a written undertaking by way of a petition was also given on behalf of the Department as reflected in the order dated 11.08.2011, the Department cannot be allowed to turn around and file the present proceeding through its Executive Engineer.）
申请人所援引的所有判例法都无法支持其论点，因为本案事实显而易见。最后，法院表示其受最高法院判例法的约束，但也需要注意到作出判决所基于的事实和情况。（None of the case laws submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner comes to her aid, as the facts are distinguishable. This Court is bound by the law laid down by the Hob'ble Apex Court, but what is required to be seen is the facts and circumstances under which the pronouncement have been made.）
综上所述，法院认为申请人的请求缺乏依据，故予以驳回。
四、评论
本案所涉裁决由产业促进委员会作出，并不是普通的仲裁裁决。根据1993年《关于向小规模和附属工业企业延期付款的利息法案》，该裁决将与根据1996年《仲裁与调解法》作出的裁决得到同等对待。因产业促进委员会仅设于Guwahati地区，随之产生的疑问是，对该裁决的异议是否只能向Guwahati地区法院提出。印度新德里高等法院在本案中澄清，虽然裁决在Guwahati地区作出，该事实不能剥夺其他法院对其本有权审理的案件的管辖权。在本案中，涉案工程在Karimganj地区施工，故Karimganj地区法院对案件具有管辖权。
另外，在本案中，扣押令是针对公共卫生部门作出，所扣押的财产涉及该部门所管辖的执行工程师办公室。法院表示，执行工程师以官方身份仅因扣押令涉及其办公室的物品而对程序提出异议，这种做法“不能理解”，被认为是拖延执行程序的一种战术。