Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 7497
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ, D.N. RAY, J
SKF ENGINEERING AND LUBRICATION INDIA PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
ACCURATE THERMAL SPRAY PVT. LTD. – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9813 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR PA JADEJA, SHRI KAMAL TRIVEDI, MR.DEVANG NANAVATI, MR. PRUTHVI JADEJA, MR.ALISHAN NAQVEE, MS KIRAN R UDASI
For the Respondents: ADITYA C YAGNIK, MR.MIHIR JOSHI, JAYANI B SHAH
Court invoked supervisory jurisdiction to rectify procedural errors in scheduling execution and Section 34 applications, emphasizing the right to a fair trial.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Application filed for stay and challenging an execution application - The Court noted that the execution and Section 34 applications were set on separate dates despite mutual agreement for joint hearing - The court invoked supervisory jurisdiction to address procedural missteps in the handling of these applications. (Paras 1, 6, 10)
(B) Jurisdiction - Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to ensure proper adherence to legal procedures - The court mandated expeditious resolution of the pending application under Section 34. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The case involved SKF Engineering and Lubrication India Pvt. Ltd. challenging the execution of an award while simultaneously seeking to stall the process through a Section 34 application which had been mishandled by the Commercial Court in scheduling.
Findings of Court:
The court decided to stay the execution order until the Section 34 application is resolved, ensuring fair judicial process.
Issues: Whether the execution notice could be set separately from the Section 34 application despite an understanding for joint hearings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of procedural integrity and proper scheduling for concurrent applications as part of the right to a fair trial.
Result: The execution order was stayed, and the matter was listed for hearing on 02.08.2025.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over scheduling of execution and section 34 applications. (Para 1) |
| 2. contenders argued for listing of both applications together. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on the procedural handling. (Para 3 , 4 , 8) |
| 4. decision to stop execution until section 34 is decided. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 5. emphasis on procedural integrity. (Para 9) |
| 6. next hearing date set by the court. (Para 12) |
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, it is undisputed fact that the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 (for short, “the Act’ 1996”) along with the stay application was filed before the Commercial Court on 16.12.2024 and the matters were adjourned for a month or so on various dates fixed thereafter.
2. After the matter under Section 34 of the Act’ 1996 filed with the stay application registered as Commercial Civil Misc.
Application No.19 of 2024 was adjourned on 05.05.2025, for the fact that the learned Judge was on leave, an execution application registered as Commercial Execution No.12 of 2025 was filed on 05.05.2025. On 06.05.2025, notice was issued by the Commercial Court in the execution case fixing 10.06.2025.
3. It is sought by the petitioner that both the application under Section 34 and the execution application are filed in the same court and in the absence of the advocate for the petitioner, whose application under Section 34 was already pending, the notice was issued by the Commercial Court on 06.05.2025.
4. Be that as it may, on 10.06.2025, it was directed that both the applications under Section 34 along with stay application and the execution petition be listed together on 25.06.2025. Placing the copy of the order-sheet on 25.06.2025 as Annexure ‘B’ to the present petition, it is sought to be demonstrated before us that the matter was heard at length in the Commercial Civil Misc. Application No.19 of 2024 (under Section 34 of the Act’
1996).
5. The submission of the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners is that it was an understanding conveyed to the learned advocates appearing for the parties that both the petition under Section 34 and the execution matter would be heard together. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, an automated SMS was received from the registry by the learned advocate about the listing of the execution petition and the Section 34 petition on different dates. The execution petition was listed on 05.07.2025, whereas the date in the petition under Section 34 was given as 02.08.2025.
6. The contention of the petitioner is that on 05.07.2025, both the learned counsels for the parties had mentioned the matter before the Commercial Court about incorrect listing of the execution matter and Section 34 matter separately on different dates and jointly requested to list the execution petition on 02.08.2025, the date fixed in Section 34 application. It is contended that on the asking of the Court to give the said request in writing, a handwritten pursis (Exhibit ‘8’) countersigned by the counsel for the respondent requesting for listing of the execution case on 02.08.2025 along with the petition under Section 34 and the stay application, was handed over to the learned judge and an endorsement “seen” duly made by the respondent counsel can be found on the said pursis itself. Page No. ‘27’ of the Paperbook is the pursis where an endorsement “seen” and the signature of the learned counsel for the respondent appearing before the Commercial Court can be seen. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, by making a note at the backside of the pursis, an order dated 05.07.2025 has been passed by the Commercial Court in the following manner. The order dated 05.07.2025 is a handwritten order, which can be found at page No. ‘28’ of the Paperbook and reads as under:-
“Heard the notice is served to the opponents yet not complied
