JUDGMENT : AKULA VENKATA SESHA SAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Ramidi Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Maheswara Rao, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. 2. In the present revision filed under Section 115 of CPC, challenge is to the order of attachment of the salary of the petitioner passed in EP No. 1129 of 2018 in AA No. 432 of 2015 dated 19.3.2019 by I Additional District Judge, Kurnool. Respondent No. 1 herein initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the petitioner herein, and the learned Sole Arbitrator rendered his Award on 15.6.2017 awarding a sum of Rs. 8,09,337-00 with subsequent interest. Seeking enforcement of the said Arbitral Award dated 15.6.2017, respondent No. 1 herein moved the Court of the learned District Judge, Kurnool, by way of filing EP No. 1129 of 2018. The learned District Judge, Kurnool, by way of the order under challenge, ordered attachment of the salary of the petitioner. This revision, calls in question the said order of attachment passed by the learned District Judge. 3. The principal contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the present revision is that since the Arbitral Award was passed by the Arbitrator at Ananthapur, the learned District Judge, Kurnool, ought not to have entertained the Execution Petition for enforcement of the said Award. 4. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 that the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained, in view of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Limited v. Abdul Samad and another, CA No. 1650 of 2018 reported in 2018 (3) ALD 79 (SC) and the judgment of composite High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of M/s. Shriram, Chennai v. S. Salauddin Kadapa District and another, CRP No. 3826 of 2008 reported in 2017 (6) ALD 5 (DB). Copies of the said orders are placed on record by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. 5. Copies of the said orders are placed on record by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. 5. In the case of Sundaram Finance Limited's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court at Para No. 22 held as under: "we are, thus, unhesitatingly of the view that the enforcement of an award through its execution can be filed anywhere in the country where such degree can be executed and there is no requirement for obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court, which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings." 6. In the case of M/s. Shriram's case (supra), the Division Bench of the composite High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in CRP No. 3826 of 2008 held as under: "Therefore, it is clear that no Court, to which an application for execution is made, can insist on the filing of the execution petition first before some other Court and to have it transmitted to it later. As a matter of fact, the Arbitration Act transcends all territorial barriers. The parties are entitled to prescribe any place as the seat of arbitration, irrespective of where the parties carry on the business or where the contract was to be executed. In commercial contracts, the parties even choose a foreign country as the seat of arbitration, despite all the parties to the agreement being in India. Therefore, if the requirement of transmission of a decree is read into the statute, it will lead to the disastrous consequences of a foreign Court having power to transmit the award to the executing Court." 7. Having regard to the law laid down in the above judgments, this Court finds no merit in the present revision. 8. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. However, it is left open for the petitioner to assail the main Award in accordance with law if he is advised to do so. 9. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this case, shall stand closed.