[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Project Director, The National ... vs Shree Nikhil Bhanvarlal Jain on 23 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/526/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 526 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 527 of 2025
==========================================================
PROJECT DIRECTOR, THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF
INDIA, PIU-SURAT
Versus
SHREE NIKHIL BHANVARLAL JAIN & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. PINKI ANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS. ARCHANA U
AMIN(2462) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SAURABH G AMIN(2168) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 23/02/2026
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. In Civil Revision Application No. 526 of 2025, challenge is
laid to the order dated 28.07.2025 passed below Exhibits 22 and 30
by the learned Additional District Judge, Surat, in Execution Petition
No. 154 of 2024.
2. Similarly, in Civil Revision Application No. 527 of 2025, the
order dated 28.07.2025 passed below Exhibits 21 and 28 in
Execution Petition No. 153 of 2024 is brought under scrutiny. Since
both the impugned orders are identically worded, arise out of
analogous facts, and involve the determination of the very same
issue, they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. It transpires from the record that, at an earlier point of time,
the judgment debtor had raised certain objections before the learned
Executing Court, then objections came to be rejected. Aggrieved
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/526/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
thereby, the judgment debtor invoked the writ jurisdiction of this
Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 4301 of 2025 and
Special Civil Application No. 4302 of 2025. In the said proceedings,
a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following
order:-
"Heard learned advocate Ms. Archana U. Amin for the
petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Saurabh G. Amin for
respondent No.1 and learned AGP Mr. Aakash Chhaya for
respondent No.2.
After arguing for some time, learned advocate Ms.
Amin does not press the present petition with a liberty to
approach the executing Court thereby petitioner can file an
appropriate objection in the execution and further request
that same may be decided by the executing Court in
accordance with law.
Considering the submissions made, permission as
sought for is granted. It is open for the petitioner to file legal
objections in pending execution proceedings before the
executing Court. If such objections are filed, it is also open
for the respondents to file necessary reply contesting such
objections. In such eventuality, the executing Court is
requested to decide the same after giving opportunity of
hearing to both the parties and in accordance with law.
It is made clear that this Court has not gone into nor
examined the merits of the matter. The present writ
applications are disposed of as withdrawn. There shall be no
order as to costs.
In view of disposal of main matters, Civil
Applications do not survive and disposed of accordingly."
4. Pursuant to the liberty so reserved by this Court, the judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/526/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
debtor preferred a fresh set of objections before the learned
Executing Court. The said objections, however, came to be rejected
by the learned Executing Court by the impugned orders, thereby
giving rise to the present Revision Applications.
5. The principal grievance canvassed on behalf of the judgment
debtor is that the learned Executing Court has failed to faithfully
adhere to the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of
litigation, wherein it was specifically directed that the objections be
treated as fresh objections and be adjudicated independently in
accordance with law. It is further contended that the scope, ambit
and statutory prescription contained in Section 33 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, including the limitation and issuance of
notice to other side provided therein, have not been appreciated in
their true letter and spirit.
6. It has been vehemently urged that if the so-called
"Margdarshan Award" has been rendered beyond the statutorily
prescribed period, the same would be an award of Court or Tribunal
being coram non judice and, therefore, a nullity in the eye of law. It
is also contended that issuance of notice under Section 33 of the Act
is mandatory and non-compliance thereof vitiates the very
substratum of the award.
7. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the decree holder
has submitted that the Executing Court cannot traverse beyond the
decree or sit in appeal over the arbitral award while exercising
powers in execution. It is contended that any challenge to the
legality, validity or jurisdictional competence of the arbitral award
ought to have been agitated in proceedings under Section 34 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/526/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. According to the decree
holder, the learned Executing Court has elaborately dealt with this
contention, and no interference is warranted in revisional
jurisdiction.
8. After substantial arguments were advanced, learned Senior
Counsel as well as learned advocates for both sides, upon
instructions, jointly requested this Court to remand the matter to the
learned Executing Court for a fresh adjudication, with a direction to
consider the objections afresh in the light of the earlier order passed
by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and to examine the true scope
and import of Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996.
9. Having regard to the rival submissions and in order to
subserve the ends of justice, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the matters
remitted for de novo consideration.
10. Accordingly, the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set
aside. The objections filed by the judgment debtor are restored to
their original file before the learned Principal District Judge, Surat,
for fresh adjudication on merits. The learned Executing Court shall
scrupulously adhere to the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench
in the earlier Special Civil Applications and shall treat the objections
as fresh objections, deciding the same in accordance with law and in
the proper perspective of Section 33 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
11. All contentions of both sides are kept expressly open. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/526/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
decree holder shall be at liberty to file reply to objections or reply, if
so advised. The learned Executing Court shall first adjudicate the
objections filed by judgment debtor on their own merits before
proceeding further with the execution proceedings.
12. It is further directed that in the event any order adverse to the
judgment debtor is passed upon such reconsideration, the operation
and implementation of such order shall remain in abeyance for a
period of one month from the date of its pronouncement, so as to
enable the aggrieved party to avail appropriate legal remedies.
13. For expeditious disposal, the following schedule shall be
adhered to:
I. The judgment debtor shall file any additional pleadings
within a period of two weeks.
II. The decree holder shall file its reply within a further
period of two weeks thereafter.
III. Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed by the judgment debtor
within one week thereafter.
14. Upon completion of pleadings, the learned Principal District
Judge, Surat, is requested to decide the objections as expeditiously
as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks thereafter,
in accordance with law.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANISH MISHRA
