Divisional Manager vs Rakesh Parkash
2023 Latest Caselaw 5676 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                     CMPMO Nos. 61, 62, 63
                                     and 71 of 2023




                                                         .

                                     Decided on: 11.05.2023
    1.CMPMO No. 61 of 2023





    Divisional Manager, H.P. State Forest Development Corp. Ltd.

                                                      ....Petitioner.

                               Versus

    Rakesh Parkash

    2.CMPMO No. 62 of 2023
                r          to                         ...Respondent.



    Divisional Manager, H.P. State Forest Development Corp. Ltd.

                                                      ....Petitioner.

                               Versus



    Roop Dutt                                         ...Respondent.

    3.CMPMO No. 63 of 2023




    Divisional Manager, HP State Forest Development Corp. Ltd.





                                                      ....Petitioner.

                               Versus





    Rakesh Parkash                                    ...Respondent.

    4.CMPMO No. 71 of 2023

    Divisional Manager, HP State Forest Development Corp. Ltd.

                                                      ....Petitioner.

                               Versus




                                        ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2023 20:43:44 :::CIS
                                       2



    Urmila Kumari                                                ...Respondent.

    Coram




                                                                    .
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting? 1





    For the petitioner(s)                 :Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate.

    For the respondent(s)                 :Mr. Kunal Thakur, Advocate, for
                                          the respondent in CMPMO Nos.
                                          61 and 63 of 2023.


                  r               to      :Mr. Sunil Kumar Kaundal,
                                          Advocate, for the respondent in
                                          CMPMO No. 62 of 2023.

                                          :Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate, for

                                          the respondent in CMPMO No. 71
                                          of 2023.

    Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)

All these petitions are being decided by a

common order as the identical question of facts and law

are involved.

2. By the orders impugned in these petitions,

learned District Judge, Solan, H.P., has held the awards

rendered by Arbitrators to be un-executable being

contrary to the mandate of Section 12(5) and 7th Schedule

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended

from time to time.

.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that the agreements were executed between

the parties prior to enactment of sub-clause (5) of

Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

(for short 'the Act') and thus, the rigors of such provision

cannot be applied retrospectively.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondents have placed on record a judgment passed by

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CMPMO Nos. 58, 59

and 60 of 2023, wherein the identical question has been

decided against the petitioner.

5. The perusal of judgment dated 27.02.2023

passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CMPMO

Nos. 58,59 and 60 of 2023 reveals that the facts in the

instant petitions are identically the same. The judgment

passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is based on

the law settled on the issue by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sang Ltd. Vs.

Ajay Sales and Suppliers, (2021) 17 SCC 248.

6. After going through the entire material on record, I

have no reason to disagree with the view already taken by a

.

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide aforesaid judgment.

7. In result, these petitions fail and are accordingly

dismissed.

8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall

also stand disposed of.

    11th May, 2023

         (sushma)
                              to               (Satyen Vaidya)
                                                    Judge