IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Haryana State Roads & Bridges Development Corporation Ltd. & another - Petitioners - Appellant
Versus
M/s PNC Infratech Limited and others - Respondents - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 2473 of 2023
Decided On : 16-05-2023
Stay - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 36 - Summary of Section 36(1) and (2) - Court balanced equities by securing the amount awarded - Court's discretion to direct deposit of amount - Exceptional case required for stay of execution of money decree
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners allotted a tender for construction of a road to respondent No. 1. The arbitration proceedings resulted in an award, and the petitioners filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court granted stay subject to deposit of the awarded amount in the form of an FDR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the pendency of objections under Section 34 of the Act does not automatically operate as a stay. The court balanced the equities between the parties by securing the amount awarded and exercised its discretion to direct the deposit of the amount. It held that an exceptional case must be made out for a stay of execution of a money decree.
Issues: The issue was whether the court erred in directing 100% deposit of the awarded amount as objections under Section 34 of the Act were pending.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the equities between the parties by securing the amount awarded and exercised its discretion to direct the deposit of the amount. It held that an exceptional case must be made out for a stay of execution of a money decree.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and pending application(s), if any, were rendered infructuous.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. This revision petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 31.3.2023 whereby the petitioners were granted stay subject to deposit of 100% awarded amount in the form of an FDR in the name of the court.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioners allotted tender to respondent No. 1 for construction of a road. The terms and conditions provided for dispute resolution through arbitration, the proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent No. 1 culminated in award dated 3.2.2019. The objections filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') are pending. On an application filed under Section 36 of the Act, the stay was granted subject to deposit of awarded amount in Court, in the shape of FDR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court concerned erred in directing 100% deposit of the awarded amount as objections under Section 34 of the Act are pending.
4. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 36 of the Act:-
(2) Where an application to set aside the arbitral award has been filed in the Court under Section 34, the filing of such an application shall not by itself render that award unenforceable, unless the Court grants an order of stay of the operation of the said arbitral award in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3), on a separate application made for that purpose.
(3) Upon filing of an application under sub-section (2) for stay of the operation of the arbitral award, the Court may, subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, grant stay of the operation of such award for reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided that the Court shall, while considering the application for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral award for payment of money, have due regard to the provisions for grant of stay of a money decree under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.”
5. As per Section 36(1) after expiry of limitation to file the application under Section 34 of the Act, subject to provisions of sub-section (2), the arbitral award shall be enforced like a decree of court in accordance with provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-Section 2 provides that the award shall not become unenforceable merely on filing of an application under Section 34 of the Act. The exception being the cases where the Court stays operation of the arbitral award. On application under sub-section (3), the Court may stay operation of the arbitral award by imposing such conditions as it may deem fit. The Court shall record reasons for granting the stay. The proviso to sub-section (3) provides that while granting the stay, provisions of Civil Procedure Code have to be given due regard.
6. The issue to be considered while dealing with stay of money decree has been settled in numerous decisions of Apex court. In the impugned order, the equities between the parties were balanced by securing the amount awarded.
7. It would be relevant to quote the following paragraphs of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Malwa Strips Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Jyoti Ltd., 2009(1) SCC (Civil)580:
An exceptional case must be made out for a stay of execution of a money decree.
Automatic suspension of execution of the award, the moment an application challenging the said award is filed under section 34 of Act leaving no discretion in court to put parties on terms, in court ....
Point of Law : Since the award was a money decree there should be 100% deposit with respondent being entitled to withdraw amount deposited and furnish solvent security to the satisfaction of High Cou....
The power to grant unconditional stay of an arbitral award is not unfettered and is subject to conditions, including the condition of securing the award by deposit in Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act, there is a requirement for depositing 100% of the awarded amount for the grant of stay, and the Co....
The court emphasized the limited scope of interference by the court in arbitration proceedings and the need to make a prima facie case for granting a stay of execution of the arbitration award.
The court ruled that allegations of fraud must be considered at the interim stage under Section 36(3), ensuring that the provision is not rendered ineffective.
The pendency of objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not automatically result in a stay of the arbitral award, and the award can be enforced like a decree of court....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the unamended Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not provide for automatic stay of the award pending the application unde....
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.