Indira Gandhi Canal Project 10 ... vs M/S Shiv Shakti Contractor ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5325 Raj

[2023/RJJD/017413]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 13/2023

1. Indira Gandhi Canal Project 10 Division, Indira Gandhi Canal Project 10 Division, Taranagar, Via Executive Engineer, Taranagar, Indira Gandhi Canal Project.

2. District Collector, Churu Through Government Of Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus M/s Shiv Shakti Contractor, 7 Adarsh Colony, Near Ambedkar Circle, Bikaner Through Partner Mahavir Prasad Mudda S/o Jagannath Mudda, R/o Bikaner.

                                                                     ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG assisted by
                                   Mr. Rishi Soni
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. A.R. Godara



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                        Order

25/05/2023

1. The application (I.A.No.01/2023) for early listing of the

appeal is allowed.

2. The matter is taken up for admission.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Admit. Issue notice, as sole respondent is duly represented

by learned counsel thus, notice need not be issued.

5. Heard on the stay application.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the

award passed by the Arbitrator under relief clause (c), (f) and

interest on the said amount, is ex-facie against the terms of the

[2023/RJJD/017413] (2 of 3) [CMA-13/2023]

contract. Further submissions have been made that specific plea

was raised under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1996'), before the

Commercial Court, which though noticed the contentions,

however, has failed to record any reason worth the name for

rejecting the said contention and therefore, the award impugned

to the said extent along with the interest awarded on the said

amounts, deserve to be stayed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently opposed

the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel. It was

submitted that looking to the scope of Section 34 of the Act, the

Commercial Court was justified in rejecting the same in the

manner the same has been done and that as the award passed is

in the nature of a money decree, interim order may not be

granted.

8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties and having perused the judgment passed

by the Commercial Court, it is apparent, that no reason worth the

name has been indicated for not accepting the contentions raised

by the appellants. The judgments relied on by the Commercial

Court dealing with the scope of Section 34 of the Act of 1996,

nowhere prescribes that order in a wholly cursory and slipshod

manner can be passed while dealing with the petitions under

Section 34 of the Act of 1996. Further, the contentions raised by

the learned counsel for the appellants to the extent of relief clause

(c), (f) and interest awarded on the said amounts, require

consideration.

[2023/RJJD/017413] (3 of 3) [CMA-13/2023]

9. In the circumstances of the case, it is ordered that in case,

the appellants deposit a sum of Rs.28,64,289/- along with the

interest as awarded by the Arbitrator in the award dated

10.08.2016 within a period of one month, the execution of rest of

the award, shall remain stayed.

10. Stay application stands disposed of.

11. Call for the record from the Commercial Court and list the

appeal for hearing as soon as the record is received.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J

4-/Devesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)