Page No.# 1/3 vs M/S S. Roy And Company
2022 Latest Caselaw 1953 Gua

                                                                      Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010076942022




                          THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                              Case No. : CRP(IO)/112/2022

           UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS.
           REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON,
           GUWAHATI-781011.

           2: THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION)
            N.F. RAILWAY
            MALIGAON
            GUWAHATI- 781011.

           3: THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION)
            N.F. RAILWAY
            NEW JALPAIGURI- 735101

           VERSUS

           M/S S. ROY AND COMPANY
           REPRESENTED BY MS. AMRITA DUBEY, RESIDENT OF NORTH
           RATHKHOLA, VILLAGE AND P.O.- NAXALBARI, DISTRICT- DARJEELING,
           PIN- 734429, WEST BENGAL.

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H GUPTA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R HUSSAIN

                                 BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

                                       ORDER

03-06-2022

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 of the CPC the order dated 07-03-2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Misc. (Arb.) Case No. 14/2022 Page No.# 2/3

has been subjected to challenge on the ground that vide the said order the petitioners have been directed to make payment of 50% of the amount awarded in the arbitration proceeding to the respondent. Heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioners and Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent.

Since Ms. Roy, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the caveator/respondent, the caveat stands disposed of. No formal notice need be issued on the respondent since Ms. Roy, learned counsel, has already entered appearance and accepted notice on behalf of respondent.

Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, read with order XLI and Clause 5(3) of the CPC, the learned Court below could have passed an order for security only and not an order for depositing 50% of the awarded amount. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pam Developments Private Limited v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 112.

She has also submitted that the observation made in the said judgment that the arbitration Act is a self sufficient Act laying the procedure etc. and, therefore, the provisions of CPC will not be applicable in the instant case. She has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has observed that when there is specific provision made in the statute, the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be restored.

On consideration of the submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the matter needs a thorough and in- depth deliberation on the aspects raised by the parties.

Page No.# 3/3

That being so, the matter is admitted for hearing and to expedite disposal of the matter, the same is fixed on 18-07-2022, and till the date fixed the order impugned in this petition is stayed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant