Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 2739
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Neeraj Tiwari, J
National Highway Authority Of India – Appellant
Versus
Jagpal Singh – Respondent
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11516 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shiv Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: Devansh Misra, C.S.C., Devesh Kumar Verma
Execution of an arbitral award can occur in any jurisdiction where the assets are located, without needing a transfer from the court overseeing arbitration.
Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3G(2), 3G(5) - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34(3) - Dispute regarding compensation for acquired land for highway - Execution of arbitral award - Jurisdiction of execution court - Court held that execution can be filed anywhere where the decree can be executed, regardless of where the award was given. (Paras 2, 11, 20)
(B) Jurisdiction - The petitioners argued jurisdiction lies with Kanpur; however, filing an appeal in Etawah was construed as acquiescing their right to object. Execution can proceed in a different jurisdiction based on asset location. (Paras 4, 6, 10, 15)
Facts of the case:
Land of respondents acquired for highway expansion; arbitration proceedings determined compensation; objection regarding jurisdiction led to present petition.
Findings of Court:
The court reinforced that the jurisdiction for execution could be anywhere in the country with reference to where the judgment debtor's assets are situated.
Issues: The core issue was jurisdiction for filing execution case - whether it lies in Kanpur or Etawah.
Ratio Decidendi: The award is treated as a decree for execution purposes, and jurisdiction is determined based on asset location rather than where the arbitration took place.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of land acquisition and arbitration. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on jurisdiction for execution. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on execution jurisdiction. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
1. Heard Sri Shiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Devansh Misra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 3.
2. Brief facts of the case are that land of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 has been acquired for widening of National Highway No. 2 at Maneyamau, Tehsil- Etawah, District-Etawah and in light of Section 3G (2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter, referred to as, ‘Act, 1956’), amount of compensation has been determined. Section 3G (5) of the Act, 1956 also provides that if either of the parties are not satisfied with the determination of the amount, on an application by either of the parties the amount shall be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. In the present case, Additional District Magistrate, Etawah vide order dated 23.12.2016 has fixed the amount of compensation. Against that, petitioners filed arbitration application under Section 3G (5) of the Act, 1956 before the Additional Commissioner, Administration, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, who is the competent authority appointed by the Central Government. Ultimately, the final award was passed vide order dated 05.08.2019. Petitioners also filed restoration application along with delay condonation application dated 17.10.2019 against the order dated 05.08.2019 and the same was rejected vide order dated 06.01.2022. Against the said award, petitioners have preferred Civil Misc. Case No. 64 of 2022 under Section 34 (3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as, ‘Act, 1996’), which was also rejected vide order dated 18.07.2023 by the Additional District Judge(POCSO Act), Etawah. Against the order dated 18.07.2023, petitioners preferred Appeal Under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Defective No. 652 of 2023, delay was condoned vide order dated 21.03.2024 and direction was issued to allot regular number to Appeal. It is undisputed between the parties that till date, no stay or interim order has been passed upon the aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioner.
3. Now, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred execution of award before the District Judge, Etawah, which was transferred to Additional District Judge, Etawah and numbered as Execution Case No. 46 of 2023. In the said case, petitioner has filed objection, numbered as 17Ga raising the issue of jurisdiction of the court, which was objected by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 by filing rebuttal numbered as Paper No. 18Ga. The objection of petitioners has been rejected vide order dated 05.08.2024. Hence present petition.
4. Sri, Shiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that office of respondent No. 1 is situated at Kanpur and from there it carries its business. Further, arbitration also took place at Kanpur, therefore, Section 36 of the Act, 1996 and provisions of CPC would by applicable and jurisdiction of execution case shall lie with the District Judge, Kanpur.
5. In support of his contention, he place reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sundaram Finance Limited Vs. Abdul Samad and Ors. : AIR 2018 SC 956, judgment of this Court in the matter of Ge Money Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Mohd. Azaz & Anr): 2013 SCC Online AII 13365 and judgment of High Court of Delhi in the matter of Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. : MANU/DE/1316/2009.
6. Per contra, Sri Devansh Misra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 vehemently opposed the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that against the said award, petitioners have preferred Civil Misc. case No. 64 of 2022 under Section 34 (3) of the Act, 1996, which was rejected vide order dated 18.07.2023. Once he has filed
