Reha Environ Private Limited vs Government of Pudcherry

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on:22.09.2026 Pronounced on: 30.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
and CMP. Nos.22726 and 22727 of 2026
CRP. No.5349 of 2026
1.M/s.Reha Environ Private Limited,
Formerly known as M/s.Kivar Environ
Private Limited, Represented by its
Authorised Signatory,
Mr.Muralidhar IM, Having its Registered
Officer at No.18C, 1st Main HSR Layout
Sector – 6, Hosur Sarjaput Road, HSR
Layout (Near Silk Board),
Bangalore - 560 034.
2.Puducherry Municipal Services Private
Limited, Represented by its Authorized
Signatory, Mr.Muralidhar I.M.
th
No.1, Hari Plaza, 8 Cross Street,
Anna Nagar, Puducherry - 605 001.
..Petitioners in
CRP. No.5394 of 2026
..Respondents in CRP.
Nos.5220 & 5221 of 2026
Vs
1. Government of Puducherry,
Represented by its Secretary,
nd
2 Floor, Office of Chief Secretariat,
No.1, Gubert Avenue, Puducherry.
2.Local Administration Department,
Director, Officer of the Local Administration
Department, Government of Puducherry,
No.2, Eveche Street, Puducherry - 605 001.
__________
Page1 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
3."POMS" Comprising of
(a) The Commissioner Office of Puducherry
Municipality, No.1, Dumas Street,
Puducherry - 605 001.
(b) The Commissioner,
Office of Oulgaret Municipality,
Government of Puducherry,
Jawahar Nagar, Opposite to Town and
Country Planning Department,
Puducherry - 605 001.
(c) The Commissioner,
Office of Villianur Commune Panchayat,
Government of Puducherry,
Villupuram Main Road,
Villianur, Puducherry.
(d) The Commissioner,
Office of Ariyankuppam Commune
Panchayat, Government of Puducherry,
Cuddalore Main Road, Ariyankuppam,
Puducherry.
4. Puducherry Urban Development Agency,
Project Director, Office of Puducherry Urban
Development Agency, No.2, Eveche Street,
Puducherry - 605 001.
..Respondent(s) in CRP. No.5394 of 2026 and
..Petitioners in CRP. Nos.5220 & 5221 of 2026
PRAYER in CRP. No.5394 of 2026: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Common Order dated
27.07.2026 in E.P. No.37 of 2024 passed by the learned Principal District
Judge, Puducherry insofar as it dismisses the execution petition as against the
Judgment Debtors No.1, 2 and 4 and discharges the properties belonging to
Judgment Debtors No.1, 2 and 4 from attachment in E.P. No.37 of 2024.
PRAYER in CRP. No.5220 of 2026: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Common Order dated
27.07.2026 passed in E.P. No.37 of 2024 in A.F. No.72 of 2016 on the file of
__________
Page2 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
the Principal District Judge, Puducherry.
PRAYER in CRP. No.5221 of 2026: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Common Order dated
27.07.2026 passed in E.A. No.08 of 2026 in E.P. No.37 of 2024 in A.F. No.72
of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Puducherry.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Anirudh Krishnan,
Petitioners in CRP. No.5394 of 2026
Respondents in CRP. Nos.5220 & 5221 of 2026
For Respondent(s): Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,
Additional Solicitor General,
assisted by Mr.Ramasamy Meyyappan,
Government Advocate (Puducherry).
Petitioners in CRP. Nos.5220 & 5221 of 2026
Respondents in CRP. No.5394 of 2026
COMMON ORDER
CRP. No.5394 of 2026 is at the instance of the award holders and the
other two revisions viz., CRP. Nos.5220 & 5221 of 2026, are at the instance of
the award sufferers.
2. Heard Mr.Anirudh Krishnan, learned counsel for the revision
petitioners in CRP. No.5394 of 2026 and respondents in CRP. Nos.5220 & 5221
of 2026 and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General,
assisted by Mr.Ramasamy Meyyappan, learned Government Advocate
(Puducherry), for respondents in CRP. No. 5394 of 2026 and for petitioners in
CRP. Nos.5220 & 5221 of 2026.
__________
Page3 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
3. The brief facts that are necessary for deciding these revision petitions
are as follows:
The respondents 2 to 4 invited interested parties for their integrated
Municipal Solid Waste Management Projects. The award holder/revision
petitioner in CRP. No.5394 of 2026, emerged as the successful bidder and has
awarded the project. The contract contained in arbitration clause and since
disputes arose, the award holder invoked the arbitration clause and this Court
appointed a sole Arbitrator. Proceedings were conducted by the sole Arbitrator
and an arbitral award came to be passed on 10.02.2022. Thereafter, an
application was taken out by the award holder under Section 33 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (in short ‘Act’/“Arbitration and
Conciliation Act”) seeking for modification of the award and by an amended
award dated 31.03.2022, the sole Arbitrator modified the amount payable to the
award holder, with specific reference to tipping fee of Rs.21,36,68,616/- being
enhanced to Rs.25,53,42,384/-.
4. Admittedly, none of the award sufferers challenged the award under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, be it the award dated
10.02.2022 or the amended award dated 31.03.2022. Thus, it can be safely
concluded that the award attained finality and in order to execute and recover
the monies payable under the award/amended award, the award holder initiated
E.P. No.37 of 2024. It is however relevant to record the fact that the award
__________
Page4 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
holders aggrieved by disallowance of certain reliefs pertaining to interest, filed
an Arbitration OP. No.5 of 2025, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act. However, the said Arbitration OP came to be dismissed on
30.01.2026. Pending the Execution Proceedings, the award sufferers, more
specifically, the Government of Puducherry, filed an Application under Section
47 of CPC, contending that the Government was never a party to the contract
entered into between the petitioners and the respondents 2 to 4 in CRP. No.5394
of 2026 and therefore, the award holder cannot proceed against the assets of the
Government of Puducherry, in order to execute the award. At the same time,
the judgement debtors also sought for deletion of schedule A properties from
the Execution Petition, alleging that the award does not specifically quantify the
amounts payable by the judgment debtors and since the Government of
Puducherry was admittedly not a party to the arbitration agreement, the decree
holders could not proceed against the assets of the Government of Puducherry.
5. On enquiry, the Executing Court dismissed the Section 47 Application.
However, the Executing Court held that the properties belonging to the different
Departments of the Government of Puducherry cannot be attached in execution,
especially, when the contracts were pertaining only to four Municipalities, viz.,
Puducherry, Oulgaret, Villianur and Ariyankuppam and proceeded to direct the
decree holders to proceed only against the immovable properties belonging to
the third judgment debtor, viz., the immovable property belonging to the
__________
Page5 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
Oulgaret Municipality situate at Jawahar Nagar, Main Road, while dismissing
the Execution Petition relating to the properties of judgment debtors 1, 2 and 4.
Aggrieved by dismissal of the Section 47 Application and the Execution
Petition being partly allowed as against the properties of the third judgment
debtor, CRP. Nos.5220 and 5221 of 2026, have been filed. Challenging the
dismissal of the Execution Petition against the properties of the Judgment
Debtors 1, 2 and 4, the award holder has filed CRP. No.5394 of 2026.
6. Arguments of the learned counsel Mr.Anirudh Krishnan, for award
holders are summarised as hereunder:
(i) It is his primary submission that even though the Government of
Puducherry may not have been a party to the contracts containing the
Arbitration Clause, right from the issuance of Section 21 notice, filing of
Section 11 Original Petition, for appointment of Arbitrator and also proceedings
before the sole Arbitrator, the Government of Puducherry has actively
participated without any protest or demur and therefore, today, especially after
having allowed the award to attain finality, it is not open to the judgment debtor
to contend that the decree cannot be executed, invoking provisions of Section
47 of CPC.
(ii) Though the operative portion of the award entitles the decree holder
to a particular sum of money, reading of the entire award would clearly suggest
that all the judgment debtors are jointly and severally liable to meet the claim
__________
Page6 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
awarded in favour of the award holders.
(iii) The Executing Court has rightly dismissed the Section 47
Application, finding that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and
when the Government of Puducherry has participated in the proceedings
through out, without the slightest protest being made or objection being taken
and also having accepted the award, there is absolutely no error committed by
the Executing Court in rejecting the Section 47 Application.
7. In support of his submissions, Mr.Anirudh Krishnan, learned counsel
has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.N.Prasad, Hitek
Industries (Bihar) Limited Vs. Monnet Finance Limited and others, reported in
(2011) 1 SCC Page 320 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
Mohamed Sheek Alavudeen Vs. The Central Administrative Tribunal and
others, reported in (2015) 3 MLJ 456 .
8. Per contra, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General,
would firstly invite my attention to the operative portion of the award which
only entitles the decree holders to recovery of a particular sum of money,
without there being any mention or bifurcation or division with regard to the
amounts that are payable by the judgment debtors, individually or jointly. He
would therefore state that when admittedly, the Government of Puducherry was
not a party to the contract, the amounts awarded can be claimed only against the
__________
Page7 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
parties to the contract and not against the Departments of the Government of
Puducherry.
9. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General would
further state that the claimants have played fraud upon the respondents and the
claimants were supposed to have created assets for carrying out the solid waste
management products and they were bound to leave the said assets with the
respondents at the termination of the contract, which admittedly, has not been
done and in this regard, he would state that since a special purpose vehicle was
formed for the purposes of lifting the garbage and carrying out the project, the
claimants could not have gone about the tasks undertaken by them, without
procurement of necessary assets and therefore, when the agreement contained
quid pro quo clause, the judgment debtors were certainly entitled and justified
in rasing the same by way of an objection in a Section 47 Application.
10. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General would
further state that fraud vitiates all acts and therefore, can always be pleaded at
any stage of the proceedings and the Section 47 application should have been
objectively tested by the Executing Court by independently, considering the
various objections taken by the judgment debtors. Taking me through the
impugned order dismissing the Section 47 Application, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,
learned Additional Solicitor General, would contend that the Executing Court
__________
Page8 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
has decided the Section 47 Application in a shabby and inadequate manner and
therefore, would persuade me to allow the revision filed by the judgment debtor
and remit the matter for fresh consideration, especially in the Section 47
Application.
11. He would also take me through Section 7 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, to reinforce the submissions that there is no jural relationship
in the first place to invoke an Arbitration agreement to which admittedly, the
Government of Puducherry is not a signatory. The learned Senior Counsel
would therefore pray for the revisions filed by the award sufferers being
allowed and the revision filed by claimant/award holder to be dismissed.
12. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel on either side and I have also gone through the decisions that are relied
by the learned counsel for the parties, besides also going through the impugned
order.
13. As already discussed, the claimant/revision petitioner in CRP.
No.5394 of 2026, entered into a concession agreement on 18.10.2010, with
judgment debtors 2 to 4 alone. It is admitted by the decree holders as well that
Government of Puducherry was not a signatory to the said concession
agreement. However, even when Section 21 notice, was issued on 12.06.2012,
__________
Page9 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
invoking the arbitration clauses, Government of Puducherry was also issued
with the said notice. Subsequently, when Section 11 applications were filed
before this Court also Government of Puducherry was arrayed as a party
respondent, no objection was taken by the Government of Puducherry before
this Court, contending that they were not a party to the concession agreement
dated 18.10.2010. In the presence of the Government of Puducherry alone, a
sole Arbitrator was appointed by this Court.
14. Curiously, even before the sole Arbitrator, the Government of
Puducherry never raised any objection or protest and on the contrary,
participated in the arbitration proceedings and ultimately suffered an award. At
the instance of the claimants, invoking Section 33 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, an Application was made to the Arbitral Tribunal for issuance
of an amended award and even in the said proceedings, the Government of
Puducherry participated and was a party to the amended award dated
31.03.2022. A Section 34 Application was filed only by the claimant as against
the disallowed portions of interest. The said challenge was however
unsuccessful with the dismissal of the Section 34 application filed by the
claimant. On the side of the judgment debtors, none of the judgment debtors
sought to challenge the award, be it the original award or the amended award by
invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Thus the
Arbitration award attained finality and the claimant/decree holder became
__________
Page10 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
entitled to enforce the award. It is during the Execution Proceedings, the
Government has raised an objection that since they were not a party to the
concession agreement, the Execution Petition cannot be proceeded against the
Government of Puducherry or the properties of the Departments of Government
of Puducherry, which were not parties to the Arbitration agreement.
15. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that one of the grounds taken by
the Government of Puducherry was non joinder even pending the Execution
Proceedings, which necessitated the decree holders to amend the cause title
pursuant to order in E.A. No.1 of 2024. The order in E.A. No.1 of 2024, passed
way back on 18.03.2025, was also not challenged. In such circumstances, it is
not only too late in the day for the Government of Puducherry to take an
objection that they cannot be proceeded against, but in fact, does not even lie in
their mouth to contend so.
16. As regards, the argument pertaining to the order passed under Section
47 CPC, I am unable to see any infirmity or perversity in the findings arrived at
by the Executing Court. The Executing Court has rightly found that having
voluntarily taken part in the entire proceedings and having suffered an award
and also not having challenged the same, it was not open to the Government of
Puducherry to raise an objection in the Execution Petition by invoking Section
47, attacking the executability or enforcibility of the award. In fact, on going
__________
Page11 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
through the grounds raised in the Section 47 petition, I find that all the grounds
taken by the judgment debtors are not actually material objections pertaining to
the executability of the award, but more relating to a challenge to the award on
merits, which would necessarily require an exercise of re-appreciation of the
findings of the learned Sole Arbitrator. Clearly such an exercise is not
permissible in Execution Proceedings, where the Executing Court is restricted
with the task of the enforcement of the award alone and it is well settled law
that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree.
17. A Section 47 petition cannot be an appeal or challenge under Section
34 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act in disguise. The objections that are taken
in the present Section 47 Application, is one such a classic case, where having
failed to challenge the award in a manner known to law, the judgment debtors
are attempting to re-agitate the award findings on merits, by moving the Section
47 Application under the Civil Procedure Code. The said attempt is clearly
unavailable to the judgment debtor and I therefore, do not find any merits in the
arguments of Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General that
the Executing Court has not tested the objections of the judgment debtors
objectively and the matter requires to be remitted to the Executing Court for
fresh consideration of the Section 47 Application.
__________
Page12 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
18. The argument with regard to fraud revolves only around the
obligation of the claimant/decree holder to leave the assets created and used for
the purposes of the contract/project. This again is a matter which ought to have
been canvassed before the Arbitrator and having not agitated the said issue
regarding the assets created to be left with the judgment debtors and there being
violation of the agreement of quid pro quo, the same amounting to fraud, cannot
be gone into at the enforcement stage.
19. On going through the award of the sole Arbitrator, I find that in fact,
the Executing Court has specifically addressed such allegations of fraud and
found that such objections were not taken before the Arbitrator and it was
therefore, too late in the day for the judgment debtors to raise the objections
after the award was passed and that too at the stage of enforcement of the
award. Again, this was an objection that ought to have been taken by the
judgment debtors, even before the Arbitrator, and having not objected or
without claiming that the claimants were also bound by the contract to surrender
the assets in terms of the agreement, such plea cannot be putforth as if a fraud
has been committed by the claimants. The Executing Court has, in fact, rightly
found that the non raising of this issue for four years after the award came to be
passed was clearly fatal. The Executing Court also rightly found that the
objections that were all taken in the Section 47 Application, if entertained
would amount to re-appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible in
__________
Page13 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
enforcement proceedings. In such view of the matter, I do not find any
infirmity or perversity in the findings arrived at by the Executing Court,
warranting interference with the order of dismissal of Section 47 Application.
20. Coming to the order of the Executing Court, directing the decree
holder to proceed only against the assets of the third judgment debtor,
dismissing the Executing Petition against Judgment Debtors 1, 2 and 4, when
the judgment debtors have all suffered an award and when the Executing Court
rightly dismissed the Section 47 Application, it clearly fell in error in restricting
the execution of the enforcement of award only as against the third judgment
debtor. It is not in dispute that the judgment debtors 1 to 4 suffered the award.
Merely because, the operative portion of the award does not mention from
whom the claimant/decree holder is entitled to recover the amounts awarded, it
is not a ground to restrict it to the third judgment debtor alone, especially when
the Executing Court has dismissed the Section 47 Application, finding that the
decree holder can proceed against even the Government of Puducherry. Once
the claimant is entitled to enforce the award passed by the Arbitrator, then it is
at the discretion of the decree holder to proceed against the judgment debtors,
jointly or severally and the Executing Court ought not to have disallowed the
decree holder to proceed against the properties of the judgment debtors, 1, 2 and
4. Further reading of the entire award also indicates that all the judgment
debtors are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount to the claimant.
__________
Page14 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
In such circumstances, the judgment debtors cannot take advantage of the
wordings in the operative portion of the award to try and wriggle out of liability.
21. Coming to the decisions that have been relied on by the learned
counsel Mr.Anirudh Krishnan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.N.Prasad Hitek
Industries (Bihar) Limited 's case (referred herein supra), referring to the
definition of arbitration agreement Section 2(1)(b) and the agreement under
Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, held that when an Application
under Section 11 of the Act, is filed there is an assertion by the Applicant of
existence of an Arbitration Agreement with each of the respondents and if the
respondents do not deny the said assertion in their statement of defence, then it
is open to the Court to proceed on the basis that there is an arbitration
agreement in writing between the parties. In fact, in the present case, as already
discussed the Government of Puducherry, has not even raised its eyebrow, right
from the issuance of Section 21 notice and thereafter, its inclusion in the Section
11 petition for appointment of Arbitrator or even before the Sole Arbitrator.
Having consciously participated in the arbitration proceedings and also
accepting the award, without challenging it, by filing a Section 34 Application,
it is not open to the Government of Puducherry, to contend in the Execution
Petition that it is not a party to the arbitration agreement and therefore, the
award cannot be enforced against it.
__________
Page15 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
22. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Mohammed Sheek
Alavudeen 's case (referred herein supra), held that where the Secretary to
Government is made a party, the failure to describe him as representing the
Union Government would only tantamount to misdescription and not to non
impleadment and even in the present case, in E.A. No.2 of 2025, in fact, as
already discussed the second judgment debtor, filed an affidavit for himeself as
well as the other judgment debtors including the State of Puducherry, pointing
out to an objection that the first respondent has been mischievously described as
Government of Puducherry, represented by its Chief Secretary, instead of
Government of Puducherry, represented by its Secretary. Even at that juncture,
it was not the case of the judgment debtors that the Government of Puducherry
cannot be proceeded against. As already stated this Application was also
allowed and the cause title was amended to reflect the Government of
Puducherry , represented by Secretary instead of Chief Secretary. In such view
of the matter, the objections of the judgment debtors are clearly an after thought
and only to protract the proceedings and buy more time, to settle the award
amounts or to deny the fruits of the award to the decree holder, especially
having allowed the awards to become final.
23. In the light of the above, the revisions in CRP. Nos.5220 and 5221 of
2026 are liable to be dismissed and the revision petitioner in CRP. No.5394 of
2026, is entitled to relief. The order restricting the execution to be limited
__________
Page16 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
against judgment debtor three alone is set aside and liberty is given to the decree
holders to proceed against the assets of all the judgment debtors. However,
considering the fact that there have been some negotiations between the parties
and even pending the revision petitions, there have been offers and counter
offers, I am inclined to grant two months time to the judgment debtors to settle
the award amount, and until such time, the Execution Proceedings shall be kept
in abeyance and in the event of the judgment debtors not settling the claim of
the decree holder, it shall be open to the decree holders to proceed against the
assets of all the judgment debtors 1 to 4.
24. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that Mr.Anirudh Krishnan,
learned counsel also brought to my notice that while carrying out amendment
in E.A. No.1 of 2024, it was restricted only to the cause title in the Execution
Petition by inadvertence, an amendement has also been carried out to the
immovable property belonging to the 4th judgment debtor, by erroneously
describing the property belonging to the third judgment debtor. The decree
holder is permitted to carry out necessary corrections in the Execution Petition
within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this
order and as already indicated, if the judgment debtors, do not settle the award
amounts payable to the decree holder within a period of eight (8) weeks from
the date of the receipt of the copy of the order, then the decree holder would be
at liberty to proceed against all the judgment debtors and their assets.
__________
Page17 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
25. In fine, CRP. No.5394 of 2026 is allowed with the above directions
and CRP. Nos.5220 and 5221 of 2026 are dismissed . Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. No costs.
30-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
RKP
To
1. The Principal District Judge, Puducherry.
2. Government of Puducherry,
Represented by its Secretary,
2nd Floor, Chief Secretariat,
Gubert avenue, Puducherry.
3.Local Administration Department,
Director, Officer of the Local Administration
Department, Government of Puducherry,
No.2, Eveche Street, Puducherry - 605 001.
4."POMS" Comprising of
(a) The Commissioner Office of Puducherry
Municipality, No.1, Dumas Street,
Puducherry - 605 001.
(b) The Commissioner,
Office of Oulgaret Municipality,
Government of Puducherry,
Jawahar Nagar, Opposite to Town and
Country Planning Department,
Puducherry.
(c) The Commissioner,
Office of Villianur Commune Panchayat,
Government of Puducherry,
__________
Page18 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
Villupuram Main Road,
Villianur, Puducherry.
(d) The Commissioner,
Office of Ariyankuppam Commune
Panchayat, Government of Puducherry,
Cuddalore Main Road, Ariyankuppam,
Puducherry.
5. Puducherry Urban Development Agency,
Project Director, Office of Puducherry Urban
Development Agency, No.2, Eveche Street,
Puducherry - 605 001.
__________
Page19 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )

2026:MHC:4381
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
P.B.BALAJI J.
RKP
Pre-delivery Order in
CRP. Nos.5394, 5220 & 5221 of 2026
and CMP. Nos.22726 and 22727 of 2026
30-10-2026
__________
Page20 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:15 pm )