IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA, J.
Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Arvind Kumar Bansal - Respondent
CMPMO No.262 of 2025
Decided On : 05-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arbitral award deposited in high court during section 34 challenge. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. parties dispute order 21 rule 1(2) cpc compliance via court deposit. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. precedents hold court deposit constitutes payment to decree-holder. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. interest ceases on deposit; execution quashed as arbitration act prevails. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Romesh Verma, J.
The present petition arises out of the order as passed by the Learned District Judge, Nahan, Distt. Sirmour, H.P dated 01.04.2025, whereby the objections as preferred by the JD/present petitioner were ordered to be dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that the arbitration proceedings commenced between the parties and an award was passed by the sole member of the Arbitrator Tribunal Mr. Satish Sagar. The Arbitrator vide its award dated 10.08.2018 allowed the claim petition as preferred by the DH/respondent and award amounting to Rs.75,22,300/- was passed in favour of the respondent and against the present petitioner to be paid within a period of 90 days from the date of award and it was further ordered that in case of failure on the part of the respondent/petitioner in making the payment, the claimant will also be entitled to future interest @18% for the period with effect from 10.08.2018 till the date of actual payment over and above the principle amount.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the present JD/petitioner filed Arbitration Case bearing No.100/2018 under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act objecting to the award dated 10.08.2018 passed by the sole Arbitrator Mr. Satish Sagar. Vide judgment dated 31.10.2022, this Court dismissed the arbitration case and the objections as preferred by the JD/petitioner and the award as passed by the learned Arbitrator was affirmed.
4. It will be pertinent to mention here that when the arbitration case/objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act were preferred by the JD/present petitioner, this Court on 21.11.2018 issued notice to the respondent/DH and on the said date, the learned counsel for the respondent appeared and waived notice on behalf of the respondent. In the stay application, it was ordered by this Court that operation of the impugned award dated 10.08.2018 passed by the Sole Arbitrator is stayed subject to the deposit of the entire awarded amount along with up to date interest as awarded by the learned Arbitrator within a period of eight weeks from 21.11.2018.
5. The case file contains application, whereby the JD/petitioner on 10.01.2019 filed an application before the Registrar General of this Court for seeking permission to deposit the demand draft bearing No.866641, drawn on Bank of Baroda, New Shimla, for a sum of Rs.81,04,712/- only in the present case. It reveals that the JD/petitioner complied with the order, which was passed by this Court on 21.11.2018 and within the stipulated period, the entire awarded amount along with up to date interest was deposited in the Registry of this Court.
6. The present respondent/DH filed an application bearing OMP No.920 of 2022 in the Arbitration case bearing No.100/2018 for the release of the said awarded amount, which was lying deposited in the Registry of this Court.
7. This Court vide its order dated 28.12.2022 allowed the application bearing OMP No. 920 of 2022 and the amount deposited by the non-applicant/present petitioner in the Registry of this Court with up to date interest was ordered to be released in favour of the present respondent/Decree Holder.
8. Though, in the application for release, it was averred that the present JD/petitioner has deposited only a sum of Rs.81,04,712/-and without prejudice to the rights, the applicant/DH shall file execution for the release of the balance awarded amount. After receipt of the said amount, the DH/respondent filed application under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on 03.08.2023 in the Court of learned Dis
HP Housing & Urban Development Authority and Anr. v. Ranjit Singh Rana
Court deposit of arbitral award amount with interest during Section 34 stay proceedings constitutes payment to decree-holder's credit, ceasing post-award interest from deposit date; Order XXI Rule 1(....
Interest ceased to run on the deposited amount after the dismissal of FAO No. 284/2005 on 04.12.2008.
Payment recognized under decree requires unconditional compliance; bank guarantees do not suffice, and interest continues until funds are available to the decree holder.
The court affirmed its jurisdiction to review its orders while highlighting that a mere filing of a review petition does not grant a stay on award enforcement unless complying with statutory requirem....
Interest on decreed amounts will not cease upon deposit in a court other than the executing court; actual payment to the decree holder is required to stop interest accrual.
The court clarified that award debtors must deposit the full awarded sum as a condition for staying enforcement, emphasizing that both public and private parties are subject to the same requirements ....
The pendency of an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act is no longer a bar for enforcement of an arbitral award. The court must hear the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act on its meri....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.