Allahabad High Court
U.P.Matsya Vikas Nigam Ltd. Throu Its ... vs Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Ram ... on 22 May, 2025
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30422
Court No. - 5
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 171 of 2012
Appellant :- U.P.Matsya Vikas Nigam Ltd. Throu Its M.D.Lko.And Ors.
Respondent :- Matsyajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Ram Nagar Puranpur Pilibhit
Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilesh Kalra,Suresh Chandra Verma
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard Shri Suresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the appellants.
2. Despite notice having been served on the respondent as per the Office Report dated 15.03.2022, no one appears on behalf of the respondent to prosecute the case. As the case pertains to the year 2012, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the same.
3. Instant application under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 09.08.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Lucknow whereby the learned District Judge has dismissed the challenge raised by the appellants to the award dated 16.02.2006.
4. Bereft of unnecessary details facts of the case as set forth by the learned counsel for the appellants are that the appellant-Corporation auctioned the fishing rights pertaining to Sharda Sagar Reservoir in ?A? category for the period from 01.07.2001 to 30.06.2004. After publication of the auction notice, initially auction could not be finalized on account of certain orders passed by the Hon?ble Supreme Court. However, the same could only be finalized in favour of the respondent on 01.02.2002.
5. After finalization, an agreement was entered into between the parties. A copy of the agreement dated 01.02.2002, which is part of Annexure-1 (Page-103) to the affidavit filed in support of the application for stay is on record.
6. In terms of the agreement, which granted fishing rights for a period of 2 years i.e. 01.02.2002 to 30.06.2004, the respondent was required to deposit 1/4th of the auction amount at the time of auction itself and remaining 3/4th between February, 2002 and March, 2002 considering the initial period of the auction which was for the period from 01.02.2002 to 30.06.2002. The controversy also pertains to the said period.
7. The respondent claimed that on account of the law and order situation, which was prevailing in the reservoir area he could not fully carry out the fishing. Upon the application being filed by him, the Corporation vide its letter dated 03.06.2002, a copy of which is part of Annexure-1 (Page-52) to the affidavit filed in support of the application for stay, extended the time for payment of installments as indicated above for the year 2002 to be paid in February, 2002, March, 2002, April, 2002, May, 2002 and June, 2002. The respondent failed to make aforesaid payments with the result that the Corporation stopped the fishing w.e.f. 03.06.2002. Ultimately the contract itself was cancelled on 12.07.2002. The respondent was also blacklisted and the security money was forfeited. The appellant also raised a demand of payment of Rs.51 Lakh for the whole financial year.
8. Being aggrieved with the said order, the respondent took the matter for Arbitration. Learned Arbitrator after considering the pleadings as were placed before it including the contract, passed an award dated 16.02.2006, a copy of which is part of Annexure-1 to the application for stay (Page-35) of the Appeal whereby considering that there were law and order situation for which adequate evidence had been led by the respondent, the respondent was unable to carry out fishing in a full fledged manner and at the same time considering the extension of time that had been granted by the appellant-Corporation, passed an award partly in favour of the respondent.
9. Being aggrieved, the Corporation filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, which has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment and hence the instant appeal.
10. The only ground as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant while raising a challenge to the order passed by the learned District Judge is that the respondent was bound by the agreement which had been entered into by the Corporation and the Contractor and there cannot be any resiling from the said terms and conditions of the said agreement, which the learned Arbitrator and the learned District Judge have failed to appreciate and hence impugned judgment merits to be set aside.
11. No other argument has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record, it emerges that an agreement was entered into between the Corporation and the Contractor-respondent herein on 01.02.2002 for fishing rights for the period of 2 years. The controversy only pertains to the fishing rights for the first year i.e. for the period from 01.02.2002 to 30.06.2002
13. In terms of the agreement, so far as it pertained to the period from 01.02.2002 and 30.06.2002, the contractor who was successful in the auction was required to deposit 1/4th of the auction amount at the time of auction itself and the balance 3/4th amount between February, 2002 to March, 2002. As he was unable to deposit the aforesaid amount, he requested the Corporation for extension of the said time, which had been acceded by the Corporation vide its letter dated 03.06.2002 whereby the balance 3/4th of the amount was required to be deposited between the months February to June, 2002. Admittedly, the Contractor failed to deposit the installments in terms of the letter dated 03.06.2002, however, even before the said period of time could come to an end on 30.06.2002, the Corporation stopped the fishing. Subsequently, the agreement itself was cancelled on 12.07.2002.
14. This led the Contractor to go in for Arbitration and the learned Arbitrator vide the award dated 16.02.2006 has set aside the blacklisting of the Contractor and passed certain other orders while partly allowing the Arbitration application.
15. Being aggrieved, the Corporation filed an appeal, which has been dismissed by the learned District Judge which has led the appellant to file instant appeal. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant pertains to the terms and conditions of the said agreement being binding between the parties.
16. However, from perusal of the award as passed by the learned Arbitrator and which infact has been considered by the learned District Judge while passing the judgment impugned it indicates about a law and order situation during the aforesaid period, which restrained the Contractor from carrying out the fishing rights to his full capacity. Interestingly, before the learned Arbitrator, the Corporation has implicitly accepted the law and order situation which prevented the Contractor from carrying out his fishing rights for the aforesaid period.
17. Learned Arbitrator has also gone into the aspect of the previous year fishing i.e. the fishing that had been done in the year 2001 vis a vis the fishing which had been carried out in the year 2002 by comparing the respective figures which thus prevailed upon him to indicate that there was a drastic drop in the fishing which had been carried out by the Contractor in the year 2002. Thus, it clearly emerges that on account of law and order situation the Contractor was unable to carry out the fishing. Learned District Judge has categorically held that in case of law and order situation the Corporation, who is at the helm of affairs, should have ensured that no such situation was created.
18. In case a situation has arisen which was beyond the control of the Contractor and which in fact should have been controlled by the Corporation consequently he could not be penalized for the said situation which aspect of the matter has been considered threadbare by the learned Arbitrator while passing award dated 16.02.2006 as well as by the learned District Judge while dismissing the appeal filed by the Corporation.
19. Considering the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. The appeal is dismissed.
20. Let trial court record be returned.
Order Date :- 22.5.2025
prateek
