IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Occupation: Retired Govt.Officer & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 25710 of 2021
Decided On : 26-04-2022
Arbitration Award - Non-Execution - Arbitration Act, 1996 - [ARBITRATION AWARD] - [NON-EXECUTION] - [Arbitration Act, 1996, Section 9, Section 34] - The court discussed the non-execution of the arbitration award and the respondents' contention that the award was not in line with the principles of the Ministry of Defence. The court highlighted the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and the principles of fair compensation, emphasizing the duty of the government to ensure adequate compensation to citizens when acquiring their property.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought enforcement of an arbitration award for compensation for their bungalow, which was resumed by the Union of India for their own purpose. The executing Court was directed to decide the execution case within four months.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents had failed in their duties to redress the grievance of the petitioners and had not performed their duties with due diligence. The court emphasized the duty of the government to ensure adequate compensation to citizens when acquiring their property.
Issues: Non-execution of arbitration award, failure of the respondents to redress the grievance of the petitioners, delay in payment of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The government has a duty to ensure adequate compensation to citizens when acquiring their property. The non-execution of the arbitration award and the delay in payment were found to be unjust and in violation of the principles of fair compensation.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to pay the awarded amount of compensation to the petitioners in terms of the arbitration award within a period of six months.
ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
'1. Allow the present Petition.
2. Pass an appropriate writ, order or directions in the natureCalculation sheet is also attached separately as (Annexure-D).of mandamus directing the Respondents to forthwith make payment of an amount of Rs.1,30,57,640/- as compensation for the subject Bungalow, situated 153, 154, 154-A, Mall Road, Mhow, District Indore along with interest @12% per annum from the date of compulsory resumption i.e., 01.04.2009, in terms of the Award dated 30/11/2011, within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of final judgement passed by this Hon'ble Court.
3. Direct the Respondents to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to the Petitioners for causing a delay in payment of compensation.
4. Award the cost of the present Petition to the Petitioner.
5. Pass any other order, writ or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.'
2. The grievance of the petitioners is of non-execution of the arbitration award passed by the Competent Arbitration Committee dated 30/11/2011, this is despite being an order passed by this Court on 02/03/2020 in WP No.4117/2020, wherein the executing Court was directed to decide the execution case within four months' time without granting unnecessary adjournments to the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even after passing of the aforesaid order, and despite giving numerous undertakings by the respondents before the executing Court for compliance of the award, no action has been taken by the executing Court nor the respondents themselves and the petitioners are running from pillar to post to get the compensation in respect of their bungalow which was resumed by the Union of India (Defence Department) for their own purpose. Thus, it is submitted that the respondents be directed to pay the amount expeditiously. Reliance is also placed by the counsel for the petitioners upon an order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court presided over by Shri Justice A.M. Sapre (as his Lordship then was), in WP No.4186/2005 dated 07/09/2006, in an identical matter.
4. A reply to the petition has also been filed and it is submitted that the award which is sought to be executed from the lower Court is not actually an award in terms of the Arbitration Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act) in fact it is only a recommendation given to the Government of India which has already been rejected by the Ministry of Defence vide its letter dated 08/03/2022, a copy of the order is also placed on record.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that the aforesaid recommendation made by the Arbitration Committee were not in consonance with the principles of procedures of the Ministry of Defence dated 18/12/2009, and the appendix there to, hence, it could not be sustained.
6. Shri Sapan Kumar, the Defence Estate Officer, Mhow (hereinafter D.E.O.) present in the Court has submitted that he has given various undertakings before the Court and the letters issued by him to the Principal Director of Ministry of Defence have also been filed on record but he has sent those letters in his capacity as DEO only and he is also bound by the orders issued to him from his superiors.
7. Ms. Bhawna Singh, the Director General Commandment, Lucknow also present in the Court has also submitted that the award itself is not actually an award but only a recommendation and cannot be executed in the Trial Court. Hence, their inability to satisfy the same may be excused and the petition be dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. From the record, it is found that it is not in dispute that the execution case No.139/2013 filed by the petitioners is pending in the Court at Mhow for execution of the award dated 30/11/201
AI
The duty of the government to ensure adequate compensation to citizens when acquiring their property.
Arbitral awards passed under Arbitration Act can be set aside only by civil court exercising statutory powers and not by administrative authorities unilaterally
The court emphasized the requirement for the arbitrator to assign reasons in support of the award and the limited scope of interference by the court in arbitration awards.
when there is a dispute between rival claimants, though not they appeared before the Acquisition Officer, still, they can claim compensation awarded under the Award.
The High Court will not entertain a writ petition if an adequate alternative remedy exists, and the reassessment of compensation under the Railways Act was upheld as valid.
Undue and unexplained delay in an arbitral award can vitiate the award's validity under public policy.
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.