SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Ori) 18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Biswanath Rath, J.
Birat Chandra Dagara - Appellant
Versus
Orissa Manganese And Minerals Ltd - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1062 of 2019
Decided On : 07-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
J. Patnaik, Advocate, B. Mohanty, Advocate, S. Patnaik, Advocate, A. Patnaik, Advocate, B.S. Rayaguru, Advocate, S. Mohapatra, Advocate, S.S. Pradhan, Advocate, R.K. Rath, Advocate, R.K. Mohanty, Advocate, A.K. Kanungo, Advocate, S.K. Sahu, Advocate
Cases Referred
Bhavan Vaja Vs. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang, (1973) 2 SCC 40 : AIR 1972 SC 1371
Gaffar Khan vrs. Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd. Kolkata, (2012) AIR(Jhar) 53
Kanpur Jal Sansthan & another vrs. Bapu Construction, (2014) 1 ArbLR 134 (SC)
Kiran Singh Vs. Chaman Paswan, (1954) AIR(SC) 340
Krishna Kumar Mundhra vrs. Narendra Kumar Anchalia, (2004) 2 ArbLR 469
M/s. Subhas Projects & Marketing Ltd. vrs. Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board, (2003) AIR(Gau) 158
Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), General, Hyderabad vrs. B. Chandra Reddy & others, (2007) 2 ArbLR 82 (SC)
Sri Swaminathan Construction vrs. Thriunavukkarasu Dhanalakshmi Education & Charitable Trust & others, (2007) Supp ArbLR 374
Union of India vrs. M/s.Popular Construction Co., (2001) AIR(SC) 4010

Headnote:

Arbitration Award - Challenge to Executability - Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 36 - Summary: The court considered the challenge to the executability of an arbitration award under Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that there is no scope for entertaining objections to the execution proceeding in the absence of a challenge to the award under Section 34 of the Act. The court emphasized the limited scope of the executing court and the need to avoid attempts to block the execution proceeding.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a challenge to the executability of an arbitration award under Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute arose from a mining lease agreement and a joint venture agreement between the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor objected to the execution proceeding, leading to a series of litigations.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there is no scope for entertaining objections to the execution proceeding under Section 36 of the Act in the absence of a challenge to the award under Section 34. It emphasized the limited scope of the executing court and directed the District Judge to conclude the execution proceeding within six weeks.

Issues: The main issue was whether there is scope for considering objections to the execution proceeding under Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, in the absence of a challenge to the award under Section 34.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there is no scope for entertaining objections to the execution proceeding under Section 36 in the absence of a challenge to the award under Section 34. It emphasized the limited scope of the executing court and the need to avoid attempts to block the execution proceeding.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition and directed the District Judge to conclude the execution proceeding within six weeks.

JUDGMENT

Biswanath Rath, J. - This Civil Miscellaneous Petition involves a challenge to the order passed by the District Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada rejecting an application at the instance of the judgment-debtor objecting the executability of a decree / Arbitration Award between the parties.

2. The dispute involves here has a long career. Main dispute involves mining lease over an area of 618 hcts. at Suleipat in Mayurbhanj District executed originally in favour of one Shri Bajranglal Padia for a term of 30 years. Subsequently, the lease hold was transferred by said Padia to the petitioner, the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor and the opposite party, the decreeholder, who in the process entered into an agreement for raising of iron ore in the petitioner's Suleipat lease area from April, 2010, constituting a Joint Venture Company, establishment of a manufacturing plant and undertaking the renewal of mining and all statutory clearances at its own cost, with further condition to set up a manufacturing unit in the name of Joint Venture Company in the State of Odisha. It is while the matter continuing as such, a dispute arose between the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder involving a notice dated 29.10.2015 to the petitioner for invoking Arbitration Clause under the Joint Venture agreement for settlement of the dispute. Parties landed in dispute which ended in filing of SLP(C) Nos.13599/2016, 13803/2016 and 13824/2016 disposed of on 1.7.2016. Finally under the direction of the Hon'ble apex Court, Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) Vikramjit Bose was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties. Consequent upon appointment of the sole Arbitrator at the instance of the Hon'ble apex Court, the arbitration proceeding was ultimately concluded with a settlement award on consent of both the parties and the arbitration award was consequently passed in terms of the settlement therein on 20.1.2018. Consequent upon passing of the award on settlement, the decree-holder initiated an execution proceeding bearing Execution Petition No.1/2019 under Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Order being passed involving an application under Section 151 of C.P.C. restraining the judgment-debtor from carrying out the mining operation, the judgment-debtor filed a petition to recall the same. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Judge, Mayurbhanj on the above application, the judgment-debtor carried a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.6353/2019 to this Court. This Court hearing the parties was pleased to set aside the order passed by the District Judge dated 7.3.2019 thereby remitting the matter this Court directed the District Judge, Mayurbhanj to re-dispose of the application dated 21.2.2019. This application was again disposed of by the order of the District Judge, Mayurbhanj. This time the decree-holder being aggrieved by the order of the District Judge filed W.P.(C) 7445/2019. The judgment-debtor also simultaneously being aggrieved by a portion of the same order filed W.P.(C) No.7537/2019 in this Court. In the meantime, one of the parties moved the Hon'ble apex Court in filing SLP, which was disposed of on 26.4.2019 requesting therein to the High Court to dispose of the pending writ petition as early as possible keeping in view the urgency involving the matter. Following the direction of the Hon'ble apex Court, this Court upon disposal of both the matters passed judgment on 9.7.2019 therein while setting aside the order dated 2.4.2019, this Court allowed revival of the order dated 7.2.2019. Involving the judgment dated 9.7.2019 in disposal of the above writ petitions, the judgment-debtor again filed S.L.P.(C) No.16647 of 2019 and the Hon'ble apex Court by order dated 2.8.2019 dismissed the SLP indicated herein above with direction to the District Judge to adjudicate and pass order in the execution proceeding. It is at this stage of the matter, the petitioner, judgment-debtor filed an application t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top