PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.
Apollo Green Energy Limited – Appellant
Versus
Man Structurals Private Limited – Respondent
CR No.3081 of 2025 (O&M)
Decided on : 01-07-2025
JUDGMENT :
Tribhuvan Dahiya, J.
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside order dated 02.05.2025, Annexure P-16, passed by Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court at Gurugram, in CIS No.ARB-02-2024, whereby he has ordered release of the decretal amount Rs.19,33,71,085 to the respondent on furnishing Bank guarantee of the equivalent amount, during pendency of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the 1996 Act') against the award dated 10.10.2023, Annexure P-7.
2. Facts relevant to decide the matter are, disputes between the parties were referred to arbitration, which led to passing of the award dated 10.10.2023, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 14,44,70,000 along with simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum from the date of cause of action, along with Rs.13,09,105 as arbitration costs, to the respondents. The award was challenged before the Commercial Court at Gurugram by filing objection petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act which is pending adjudication.
2.1. The respondent/decree holder filed an execution petition in the Delhi High Court, OMP (ENF) (Comm.) 18 of 2024 titled Man Structurals Pvt. Limited v. Apollo International Limited (now known as Apollo Green Energy Limited) for enforcement of the award. Vide order dated 23.01.2024, the Executing Court passed an interim order for maintaining status quo with regard to title of immovable properties belonging to the petitioner as mentioned in the list of assets furnished by the respondent.
2.2. Later, the Commercial Court decided the petitioner's application for stay on enforcement of the arbitral award filed under Section 36(3) of the 1996 Act, vide order dated 06.09.2024, Annexure P-10. It was partially allowed by requesting the Delhi High Court/Executing Court that the decretal amount to be deposited by the petitioner may not be disbursed to the respondent/decree holder. The order reads thus:
11. Admittedly, an execution petition has already been filed by the claimant/respondent before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court i.e. case titled as Man Structurals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Apollo International Limited (Now Apollo Green Energy Limited) OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 18/2024 in which a direction has been issued by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 15.07.2024 directing the judgment debtor i.e. the present petitioner to deposit the decretal amount with the learned Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi within 8 weeks from the date of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
12. In the light of discussion made above and without observing anything on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the parties while deciding the main petition under Section 34 of the Act, the application moved by the applicant/petitioner is partly allowed. On depositing of the decretal amount by the applicant/petitioner with the learned Registrar General of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble executing court is requested not to disburse the aforesaid amount to the respondent/claimant/DH till the decision of the main petition under Section 34 of the Act. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
However, request of the Commercial Court not to disburse the amount was rejected by the Executing Court, vide order dated 23.09.2024 (produced by learned counsel for the respondent and retained on the case file as Annexure 'A').
2.3. The order, dated 06.09.2024, granting conditional stay was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing a revision petition, CR No.5996 of 2024, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.11.2024, Annexure P-11. This Court was of the view that the direction to deposit the decretal amount with the Executing Court/Delhi High Court with the request not to disburse it till disposal of the objection petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, safeguarded the petitioner's interests.
2.4.
The execution of an arbitral award may proceed despite pending appeals unless a stay is expressly granted; writ jurisdiction is not an avenue for private arbitration disputes absent substantial legal....
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(....
Execution of an arbitral award requires compliance with the 90-day limitation under Section 34; execution petitions filed before this period are impermissible.
Interest ceased to run on the deposited amount after the dismissal of FAO No. 284/2005 on 04.12.2008.
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....
The absence of a condonation application renders a challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act invalid if filed beyond the statutory limitation period.
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.