Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9907

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
M/s Kripa Road Lines Pvt Ltd A Registered Partnership Firm, Having Its Office At Near, S B I, Sarkanda Branch, Bilaspur, C.G., Through One Of Its Partner- Mr. Shrawan Kumar Soni – Appellant
Versus
M/s National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd Sipat Super Thermal Power Project At Ujjwal Nagar, Sipat, District- Bilaspur, C.G. – Respondent
WP227 No. 737 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate, Mr. Aseem Bhagwat Gopal
For the Respondents:Dr. Nirmal Shukla, Senior Advocate, Mr. Anuroop Panda

The court emphasized the necessity of substantiating claims and providing fair opportunities before initiating perjury proceedings, ruling against wrongful use of affidavits unsupported by evidence.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Application against an ex-parte award for recovery of a significant sum - Proceeding for perjury initiated based on allegedly false affidavit statements concerning outstanding amounts - Importance of establishing liability supported by necessary documents - Failure to provide opportunity for defence against perjury proceedings found unsustainable as no evidence was provided to refute the petitioner's claims. (Paras 6, 13, 14)

(B) Perjury - Instances where perjury proceedings can be initiated - Necessity for a substantiated claim for false statements made on oath and ensuring fair opportunity to the parties involved. (Paras 6, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner disputed an arbitration award for a substantial claim of Rs. 2,05,82,962/- and sought to quash a court order that initiated perjury proceedings based on a claim that funds were owed by a third party, M/s BALCO, which was ultimately unsubstantiated.

Findings of Court:
The initiation of perjury proceedings against the petitioner was set aside due to lack of evidence and proper opportunity to defend the claim made in the affidavit.

Issues: The primary issue was whether sufficient grounds existed to establish progressing perjury charges based on the submitted affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the failure to duly substantiate allegations of financial liability against a third party does not automatically justify the initiation of criminal proceedings for perjury, especially when the affected party was not adequately given a chance to present their case.

Result: The criminal proceedings for perjury against the petitioner were set aside.

Table of Content
1. petition for relief and quashing of order. (Para 2)
2. background of arbitration agreement and ensuing disputes. (Para 3 , 4)
3. respondent's claims and initiation of perjury proceedings. (Para 5 , 6)
4. arguments regarding the claim and liability. (Para 7 , 8)
5. decision to set aside perjury proceedings based on lack of evidence. (Para 13 , 14)

Order On Board

04-08-2025

1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:-

10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned Order dated 15.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) in Execution Case no. 05/2018 and any consequential proceeding arising therefrom.

10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.

2) Facts of the present case are that the parties herein entered into an agreement for loading and transportation of coal, and there was a dispute with regard to the demand of Rs. 27 lakhs by the respondent. Respondent [award-holder] invoked arbitration clause and filed a claim before the Sole Arbitrator and an ex-parte award was passed on 08.10.2016 whereby the petitioner [award-debtor] was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,05,82,962/- with interest @ 10% p.a. Against the said award, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) and the said application was dismissed vide order dated 23.12.2017.

3) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an arbitral appeal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, and the same is pending consideration. Meanwhile, the respondent initiated the execution proceedings for the recovery of the award amount, and it was registered as Execution Case No. 05/2018 before the learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Naya Raipur. It is pertinent to mention that earlier, the execution proceeding was dismissed in default and for non-compliance with the orders passed by the learned Commercial Court. Later on, it was restored, and a notice was served upon the petitioner to appear before the learned Court below on

09.08.2024.

4) Petitioner submitted a proposal for payment of the decretal amount in instalments and on 17.10.2024, deposited Rs. 30 lakhs into the account of the respondent. Vide order dated 17.10.2024, the learned Court below directed the petitioner to furnish the details of his assets on an affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an affidavit on 26.10.2024 in the prescribed proforma and on 08.01.2025, the petitioner submitted a revised proposal for payment of Rs. 20 lakhs per month towards the satisfaction of the award amount. Thereafter, Rs. 20 lakhs were deposited into the account of the respondent. On 14.01.2025, the respondent agreed to accept the revised payment schedule for monthly instalments and till date, Rs. 1.9 Crore has already been paid.

5) Respondent filed an application under Order 21 Rule 46 of CPC on

22.03.2025 for impleading M/s Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. (BALCO), Korba (C.G.) as “Garnishee” for satisfaction of the arbitral award on the basis of the affidavit dated 26.10.2024 filed by the petitioner, wherein it is mentioned that a debt of more than Rs. 2 Crore is due against M/s BALCO, Korba. Learned Commercial Court issued notice to M/s BALCO, Korba. Subsequently, an affidavit was filed by M/s BALCO, Korba on 30.06.2025 wherein any financial liability was denied.

6) Learned Court in the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 held that the award-debtor miserably failed to place on record any document substantiating any liability of M/s BALCO, Korba. It is further stated that a copy of the agreement executed way back in the year 2009 is available on the record, and there is no document to establish the outstanding amount. Le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document