Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others on 16 October, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1196 of 2019
M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate
For the Respondent No.3 : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate
: Ms. Shweta Suman, Advocate
: Ms. Anjali Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mukul Kr. Singh, AC to GP-III
---
14/16.10.2024
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
2. Specific point has been raised by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of private party that the present writ petition is not
maintainable. She submits that the impugned order is an arbitration
award and writ petition is not maintainable. She has also submitted
that the writ petition has been filed on a date by which the statutory
remedy under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
had already become time barred and the permissible period of
condonation of delay had also expired. She has also raised a point
regarding non-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount (with interest)
as per the provisions of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises
Development Act, 2006.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted that the writ petition is maintainable in view of the fact that
the order passed by this Court has not been complied. He has
submitted that the earlier award was set aside by this Court and the
matter was remanded. On remand the provisions of Order 41 Rule 23
and 25 of the CPC have not been followed.
4. He has also submitted that the impugned award reflects that six
notices were issued to the petitioner but the petitioner did not attend
the proceedings. He submits that he has made specific averments in
the writ petition that the notices were not served and therefore, there
has been a gross violation of principle of natural justice.
5. He has also submitted that irrespective of the fact as to whether
the petitioner appeared or not appeared the direction passed by this
Court on remand was required to be followed in letter and spirit. The
same having not been done, the impugned award cannot be sustained
in the eyes of law and calls for interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. He has also submitted that merely because the
petitioner had a remedy under section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 the same will not ousted the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. During the course of hearing and upon going through the
records of this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been
able to show any averment in the writ petition with regard to non-
service of the award which was said to be communicated to the parties
as is reflecting from the impugned award itself. It is further not clear
from the records as to the date on which the award came to the
knowledge of the petitioner for the first time. However, the petitioner
has also annexed a copy of the notice dated 19.09.2018 which is a
communication from the private respondent to the petitioner
mentioning about the award. The date of receipt of the said notice
dated 19.09.2018 has also not been mentioned in the writ petition.
7. The learned counsels have also submitted that they would be
citing certain judgments in support of their respective contentions and
they may be permitted to file written submissions.
8. The hearing of the parties is concluded.
9. Judgement is reserved.
10. The learned counsels are directed to submit their written
submissions within a period of one week from today with their
synopsis of arguments and the judgments which they seek to rely
upon. The parties to exchange copies of their written submissions.
11. It is expected that while citing a judgment, they will take care
as to whether those judgments still hold field. This is in view of the
fact that there have been numerous judgments by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 from
time to time.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh/-
