Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Union Of India And Anr on 25 June, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010137402025
2025:GAU-AS:8618
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/233/2025
M/S CITY PROMOTOR AND BUILDWELL PVT LTD
ANSAL COMPLEX, OPP JWALA HERI MARKET, PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW
DELHI-110063. REPRESENTED BY SRI NAVEEN SEHRAWAT, S/O KULDEEP
SEHRAWAT, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, A R/O B-1/1457, VASANT KUNJ, NEW
DELHI-11007 AND OFFICE ADDRESS -3015, VASANT GREENS, GATE NO. 2,
AMBIENCE TOWER LANE, SEC. A PKT. B AND C, VASANT KUNJ, NEW
DELHI-110070
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER SILIGURI ZONE, MILITARY
ENGINEER SERVICE, SEVOKE ROAD, POST- SALUGARA, SILIGURI (WEST
BENGAL), PIN-734008
2:THE GARRISON ENGINEER
MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICE
P.O.- MISSAMARI
P.S.- MISSAMARI
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN-78450
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.J. Sarma, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Gupta, CGC
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 25.06.2025
Page No.# 2/5
Heard Mr. R.J. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner. Mr. H. Gupta, the learned CGC appears
on behalf of the respondents.
2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked
challenging an order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonitpur in Misc. (J) Case No.
94/2024 arising out of Misc. Arbitration Case No. 01/2024.
3. It is seen from the materials on record that an award was
passed being Arbitration/MES/EC/CPB/11 dated 14.08.2024 by
the learned Arbitrator. Being aggrieved, an application was filed
by the respondents herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act of 1996") for
setting aside the said arbitral award which was registered as
Misc. Arbitration Case No. 01/2024. It is further apparent from
the materials on record that an application was filed under
Section 36 of the Act of 1996 for stay of the arbitral award
pending disposal of the application filed under Section 34 of the
Act of 1996. This application was registered and numbered as
Misc (J) Case No. 94/2024.
4. The learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Sonitpur had passed an ex-parte order of stay of the arbitral
award till the disposal of Misc. Arbitration Case No. 01/2024 and
Page No.# 3/5
the proceedings being Misc. Arbitration Case No. 01/2024 was
accordingly fixed on 29.01.2025.
5. It is relevant to take note of that after 8 (eight) months
from the date of passing of the said order, the present
application has been filed challenging the order dated
12.11.2024. The question therefore arises, as to whether, this
Court should interfere with the said order in exercise of the
supervisory jurisdiction.
6. It is relevant to observe that in a proceedings under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, the Limitation Act, 1963 does
not apply. It is also pertinent to observe that the Act of 1996 is
a Code by itself and the said enactment does not provide an
appeal against an order of stay of the arbitral award. Under
such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that if the
supervisory jurisdiction is to be exercised, the petitioner was
required to approach this Court at the earliest. There are no
reasons assigned, as to why, it took 8 (eight) months for the
petitioner to approach this Court after passing of that order. On
this ground alone, this Court is not inclined to exercise its
supervisory jurisdiction.
7. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of Section
34(6) of the Act of 1996, whereby it is stipulated that an
Page No.# 4/5
application filed under Section 34 shall be disposed of
expeditiously, and in any event, within a period of 1 (one) year
from the date, on which, the notice referred to in Sub-Section
(5) is served upon the other party. It is further pertinent to
observe that the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar &
Others Vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti reported in
(2018) 9 SCC 472 observed that every Court in which a Section
34 application is filed is required to stick to the time limit of 1
(one) year from the date of service of a notice to the opposite
party by the applicant or by the Court, as the case may be.
Paragraph Nos. 26 and 27 of the said judgment being relevant,
is reproduced herein under:
"26. We are of the opinion that the view propounded by the High Courts of
Bombay and Calcutta represents the correct state of the law. However, we may
add that it shall be the endeavour of every court in which a Section 34
application is filed, to stick to the time-limit of one year from the date of service
of notice to the opposite party by the applicant, or by the Court, as the case
may be. In case the Court issues notice after the period mentioned in Section
34(3) has elapsed, every court shall endeavour to dispose of the Section 34
application within a period of one year from the date of filing of the said
application, similar to what has been provided in Section 14 of the Commercial
Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts
Act, 2015. This will give effect to the object sought to be achieved by adding
Section 13(6) by the 2015 Amendment Act.
27. We may also add that in cases covered by Section 10 read with Section 14
of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate
Page No.# 5/5
Division of High Courts Act, 2015, the Commercial Appellate Division shall
endeavour to dispose of appeals filed before it within six months, as stipulated.
Appeals which are not so covered will also be disposed of as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within one year from the date on which the appeal is filed.
As the present appeal has succeeded on Section 34(5) being held to be
directory, we have not found it necessary to decide Shri Rai's alternative plea of
maintainability of the letters patent appeal before the Division Bench."
8. Taking into account the above, as already more than 8 (eight)
months have passed by from the date of passing of the order, it is
therefore the opinion of this Court that instead of passing any order to
the challenge made to the order dated 12.11.2024, it would be in the
interest of justice to direct the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Sonitpur to dispose of the said application in terms with the
mandate of Section 34(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
read with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bihar
Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti (supra).
9. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
