M/S Zapdor-Ubc-Abn (Jv) Thru. ... vs Union Of India Thru. G.M. Northern ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3229 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 5482 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- M/S Zapdor-Ubc-Abn (Jv) Thru. Amresh Anand
 
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. G.M. Northern Railway N.Delhi & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Divyam Krishna,Utkarsh Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Mrs.Suniti Sachan
 

 
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.K. Shukla, Advocate assisted by Mrs. Suniti Sachan, learned counsel for the respondents.

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the Commercial Court at Lucknow in Arbitration Case No.925/2019.

The submission is that in pursuance of the joint venture, a contract was awarded to the petitioner. The aforesaid contract contained an arbitration clause and on account of certain disputes, the matter was referred for arbitration and after due consideration, the Arbitral Tribunal passed an award dated 06.03.2019.

The petitioner put the aforesaid award in execution before the Delhi High Court at New Delhi wherein by means of the order dated 24.12.2019 it was provided that the judgment-debtor would deposit entire amount with the Registrar General, Delhi High Court at New Delhi and 50% was directed to be released in favour of the petitioner and the remaining amount was directed to be kept in fixed deposit till further orders.

Certain subsequent orders were also passed dated 10.02.2021 wherein it was noticed that the matter regarding Section 34 against the Arbitral award was pending before the Commercial Court at Lucknow wherein the respondents had moved an application for stay which was heard and the orders were awaited. Considering the aforesaid, it was directed that in case if there is no order regarding the stay of the arbitral award, the necessary orders for enforcing the award would be passed.

It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties were heard at length and they had also filed their detailed written arguments, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.8. It is submitted that despite the detailed written arguments as well as the relevant orders passed by the Delhi High Court from time to time in the proceedings, the same have not been considered nor the legal submission have been considered and by means of the order dated 09.02.2021 in a cryptic manner, the award has been stayed.

Shri B.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order dated 09.02.2021 does not require any interference inasmuch as the rights of the petitioner has already been secured inasmuch as 50% of the amount has already been released and the remaining 50% is subject to the orders of the Delhi High Court and is kept in a fixed deposit.

It has further been submitted that since an application under Section 34 is pending before the Commercial Court at Lucknow and the Railways-respondents had moved an application for stay and considering the facts and circumstances, the Commercial Court at Lucknow has passed an order staying the release of the remaining amount and as the order is interlocutory in nature does not require any interference.

The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and has also perused the record.

The merits of the controversy is not in dispute before this Court at this stage. In pursuance of the arbitration clause an arbitral award dated 06.03.2019 has been passed which was put in execution before the Delhi High Court. It is also not in dispute that the Delhi High Court has passed orders from time to time in pursuance whereof the 50% amount has already been released in favour of the petitioner and the remaining 50% has been kept in fixed deposit. It is also not in dispute that as late as on 10.02.2021, the Delhi High Court noticing that the matter had already been heard by the Commercial Court at Lucknow and had reserved the matter for orders on the application for interim relief had adjourned the matter with the direction that in case if there is no stay order then appropriate orders for enforcing the award shall be passed.

In the aforesaid backdrop and considering the rival contentions as well as the reply and submissions which have been submitted before the Commercial Court at Lucknow, it appears that none of the aforesaid aspect finds reflection in the order dated 09.02.2021.

From the perusal of the impugned order mere bald contention of the Union of India represented through the present respondents has been noticed and without any advertence to any of the facts, submissions or the reply of the present petitioners nor the Commercial Court has referred to the orders passed by the Delhi High Court and in a cursory manner, the impugned order has bee passed. There is no reflection of any application of judicial mind.

It has now been well settled that any order must contain reasons.

The Apex Court in the case of Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs and another vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado and another, (2004) 7 SCC 431, shall be relevant and reads as under:-

"11. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.

12. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 1 All ER 1148 : (1971) 2 QB 175 : (1971) 2 WLR 742 (CA)] observed: (All ER p. 1154h) "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance."

Considering the facts and circumstances as well as in light of the settled proposition in the case of Cyril Lasrado (supra), this Court is of the definite view that the impugned order dated 09.02.2021 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside.

In view of the fact that the order has been set aside only on the ground that it is bereft of any reason hence direction is issued to the Commercial Court at Lucknow to consider the respective submissions of the parties and pass an fresh order on the application for interim relief moved by the respondents after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties and decide the same preferably within a period of two weeks from the date an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the Court concerned.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 9.3.2021

Rakesh/-