ARB.C/41/2020
2021 Latest Caselaw 2981 HP

Arb. Case No.41 of 2020 a/w Arb. Case No.50 of 2020 & Ex. Pet. No.13 of 2020

.

Arb. Case No.41 of 2020

29.06.2021 Present: Mr. B.C. Negi, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashok Sud, Sr. Advocate, with M/s Vishwa Bhushan and Devender K.

Sharma, Advocates, for the respondent.

Arb. Caase No.50 of 2020 Mr. Ashok Sud, Sr. Advocate, with M/s Vishwa Bhushan and Devender K.

Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioner.

Mr. B.C. Negi, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondents.

Ex. Pet. No.13 of 2020

Mr. Ashok Sud, Sr. Advocate, with M/s Vishwa Bhushan and Devender K.

Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. B.C. Negi, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Shubh

Mahajan, Advocate, for the Judgment Debtor. (through video conferencing).

OMP No.03 of 2021 in Arb. Case No.41 of 2020

By way of this application, filed under

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the

applicant/respondent/claimant has prayed for release

of an amount of Rs.84,00,000/- out of the total claim

amount awarded in favour of the applicant by learned

Arbitrator, which award is the subject matter of the

main petition, on the ground that the Punjab National

Bank has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the

.

Negotiable Instruments Act, against the director of

the claimant company for the dishonor of the check

amounting to Rs.84,00,000/- and also Civil Suit for

recovery against the claimant company and its

Director, which are pending before the appropriate

Courts at Chandigarh and in addition, the applicant

(Director) has also received a notice from Debt

Recovery Tribunal Chandigarh, which has

necessitated the filing of the application so that the

applicant is able to mitigate the circumstances with

the help of the said amount.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

non-applicant/ petitioner, has argued that in case the

amount is released in favour of the claimant, then it

will seriously prejudice the non-applicant, as in the

event of the present petition being allowed, it will be

difficult for the petitioner to recover the said amount

from the applicant. Alternatively, learned Senior

Counsel, on instructions, submits that in case the

amount is ordered to be released by the Court in

favour of the applicant, then adequate security and

surety be taken from the applicant so that the interest

.

of the petitioner is served.

I have heard learned Senior counsel,

appearing for the parties and also gone through the

averments made in the application, a perusal whereof

demonstrates that the reasons mentioned in the same,

as to why the amount is required by the applicant, are

duly borne out from the documents appended with the

application.

It is not in dispute that the total amount

which has been awarded in favour of the applicant is

about Rs.1,06,00,000/- approximately. In this view of

the fact, this application is disposed of with the

direction that out of the total amount deposited by the

non-applicant/ petitioner before this Court, an amount

of Rs.75,00,000/- only be released in favour of the

applicant in its bank account, details of which are

mentioned in the application, subject to the applicant

furnishing security by way of mortgage of the

property, in terms of Order 41, Rule 5 of the Civil

Procedure Code, with the condition that the property

to be so mortgaged, should be free from all

encumbrances. In addition, surety to the tune of the

.

amount released, shall also be furnished by the

applicant to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial),

High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

Copy dasti.

    June 29, 2021
      (Rishi)
                 r          to        (Ajay Mohan Goel)
                                          Judge