Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. Board Of Secondary Education vs R.K. Secuprint Pvt. Ltd. on 15 September, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45039
1 AA-156-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 15th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 156 of 2025
M.P. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
Versus
R.K. SECUPRINT PVT. LTD.
Appearance:
Shri Naman Nagrath - Senior Advocate with Shri Satish Kumar
Dixit - Advocate for the petitioner .
Shri Siddhartha Kumar Jain - Advocate for the respondent through
Video Conferencing.
WITH
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 136 of 2025
M.P. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
Versus
M/S MANIPAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Appearance:
Shri Naman Nagrath - Senior Advocate with Shri Satish
Kumar Dixit - Advocate for the petitioner .
Shri Siddhartha Kumar Jain - Advocate for the respondent
through Video Conferencing.
ORDER
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45039
2 AA-156-2025
Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, which is the
Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education, who is aggrieved by the
dismissal of their application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act
challenging the arbitral award passed against them dated 14.09.2019.
2. Learned counsel for the parties have taken us through the judgment
passed by the learned Commercial Court which has only reproduced the
arguments put forth by the respective parties, and thereafter, arrived at
the conclusion that the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under
Section 34 have not been made out. Specifically, the learned counsel for
the respondent has referred to the order under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act with specific reference to paragraph No.5, which is only
a part of the submission put forth by the parties.
3. Having gone through the judgment, this Court is satisfied that the
learned Commercial Court, besides having referred to the submissions
put forth by both the parties before it, and by referring to the judgments
on the Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that no reason has
been mentioned and 34 applications were not maintainable and
dismissed the same.
4. Regrettably, this Court is of the opinion that the learned
Commercial Court should have been a little more elaborate and besides
referring to the submissions of both the sides, should have dwelt upon
them and thereafter, given its opinion as to why the arbitral award ought
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45039
3 AA-156-2025
not to have been interfered with. In this regard, learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant has referred to judgment of a
Coordinate Bench in the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. M/s SMEC
International Pvt. Ltd., ( Arbitration Appeal No.47 of 2022 dated
15.09.2022) wherein a similar case, where the order passed by the
learned Commercial Court dismissed the application of the appellant
under Section 34, did not lay down the reasons or give its opinion after
considering the conflicting arguments as to why a case has not been
made out for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, was
remanded to the learned Commercial Court for hearing both sides and
pass a decision afresh.
5. As both the cases are similar on core issues, this Court is of the
opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter
be remanded. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the case is
remanded to the learned Commercial Court to hear both the sides and
decide the application under section 34 of the appellant herein afresh by
giving its reasons/findings on the issues raised by both the sides and
thereafter give its decision.
6. As there has been considerable delay of the respondent's rights in
this case as stated by the learned counsel for the respondent, this
Court requests the learned Commercial Court to hear and conclude this
case expeditiously and if possible, within a period of six months from
the date on which the order of this Court is uploaded on the website of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45039
4 AA-156-2025
the High Court.
7. The execution proceedings being a consequence arising from the
dismissal of the application under Section 34 filed by the appellant
herein, shall also stand extinguished. If, the respondent succeeds before
the learned Commercial Court in the second round, fresh execution
proceedings may be initiated thereafter. However, the stamp duty paid
by the respondent herein would be adjusted against the fresh application
for execution, if the respondent fails in getting the application under
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act dismissed or in the event, the appellant
herein succeeds before the learned Commercial Court, then the execution
fee be refunded to the respondent.
8. With the above, these appeals are finally disposed of.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
pn
