[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Nitin Sahu vs M/S Cholamandalam Investment And ... on 12 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11810
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 889 of 2025
1. Nitin Sahu, S/o Shri Natthu Prasad Sahu, Aged About 34 Years, R/o H. No.
639, Pendra, Tehsil Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
(Judgment Debtors).
2. Urmilla Nitin, D/o Shri Natthu Prasad Sahu, Aged About 58 Years, R/o H. No.
639, Pendra, Tehsil Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
(Judgment Debtors).
... Petitioners
versus
• M/s Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Limited, Registered
Office At Dare House No. 2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai, 600001, Branch
Office - Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd. Ward No.21,
Beside Bhaiyyalal Petrol Pump, Ambikapur Road, Chainpur Manendragarh,
Tehsil Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, Now District (MCB)
(Description Of The Parties Mentioned As Per The Records Of Impugned
Execution Proceedings)
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
12/03/2026
1. Heard.
2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following relief(s):-
"10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash the impugned execution proceedings bearing
MJC Civil Case No.23/2022 between the parties
Digitally
DEEPTI signed by
JHA DEEPTI
JHA
(Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.,
Vs. Nitin Sahu and another) pending before the Court
of District Judge, Pendraroad, District G-P-M- (C.G.)
(Annexure-P/1).
10.2 This, Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to
pass any order or issue any suitable writ of
superintendence as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
under the circumstances of the case including the cost
of the petition."
3. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the identical issue
has previously arisen before this Court in WP227 No.1162 of 2024 and this
Court vide its order dated 04.03.2025 allowed that writ petition and quashed
the execution proceedings initiated, on account of an award passed by an
arbitrator appointed unilaterally by the respondent. He further submits that
the issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra in light
of the above aforementioned judgment. Therefore, he prays that the present
writ petition may also be decided in terms of that order.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent though opposes the submissions,
however he is not in a position to dispute the law laid down by this Court in
WP227 No.1162 of 2024. A pointed query was raised by this Court as to
whether, the order dated 04.03.2025 passed in WP227 No.1162 of 2024 has
been assailed or not. Mr. Sharma submits that the order has not been
assailed as yet.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. The challenge in this writ petition is to an execution proceeding initiated by
the respondent for execution of the award dated 16.05.2022 passed by the
Sole Arbitrator. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that
the appointment of the arbitrator was unilateral and against the mandate of
Section 12(5) r/w Schedule 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as
amended by the Amendment Act of 2015. He submits that the issue involved
in WP227 No.1162 of 2024 is similar to the case at hand, where the arbitrator
was appointed by the respondent unilaterally. Therefore, the award is
required to be set aside including the execution proceeding. This Court, in
that previous case, relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court and this
Court in the cases of Bharat Broadman Limited Vs. United Telecom, 2019
(5) SCC 755; Shreepat Mishra and another Vs. M/s Equitas Small
finance Bank Limited and others, WP227 No.726 of 2023 decided on
09.09.2024; TRF Limited Vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited, 2017
(8) SCC 377; Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and another Vs. HSCC
(India) Ltd., AIR 2020 SC 59, allowed that writ petition and quashed the
award and execution proceedings. In the opinion of this Court, as the said
order passed in WP227 No.1162 of 2024 has not been assailed by the
respondent, this Court is not inclined to take a different view. Therefore, the
execution proceedings (Annexure P-1) and award dated 16.05.2022
(Annexure P-2) are hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of
the respondent to initiate fresh proceeding in accordance with the settled
legal preposition.
7. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of.
8. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
Deepti Jha
