Uttarakhand High Court
Highway Authority Of India vs Bahadur Singh And on 5 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 5th DAY OF January, 2021
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 1725 OF 2020
BETWEEN :
Bahadur Singh (Male, aged about 61 years),
S/o Shri Tahal Singh,
R/o Village Chikaghat, Tehsil Sitarganj,
District Udham Singh Nagar
....Petitioner.
(By Shri S.K. Mandal, Advocate)
AND :
1. Union of India, Ministry of Road, Transport and
National Highway, through Project Director, Indian
National Highway Authority, National Highway-
125, Project Execution Unit, House No.23, Friends
Enclave, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. Competent Authority/Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Udham Singh Nagar
....Respondents.
(By Shri Naresh Pant, Advocate and Shri R.C.
Arya, Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand)
ORDER
A very peculiar situation has emerged for
consideration in the present Writ Petition, where the
petitioner has given a challenge to the judgment of 15th
September, 2020, which has been rendered by the
Court of District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in a
proceedings under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, 1996,
which is presently pending by way of an Arbitration
Case No. 48 of 2019, Project Director, National
Highway Authority of India Vs. Bahadur Singh and
another, wherein, the respondents have put a challenge
to the award of the Arbitrator dated 14.06.2017, as
was rendered under the provisions of the National
Highways Authority Act, 1956, in a case being Case
No.51/193 of 2016-17.
2. In those pending proceedings under Section
34 of the Act of 1996, the petitioner is said to have
moved an application in the Arbitration Case No. 48 of
2019, National Highway Authority of India Vs. Bahadur
Singh, whereby, the petitioner by filing an application,
paper No.32-A, dated 10.09.2020, had made a request
to the Court below for releasing the entire award
amount during the pendency of the proceedings under
Section 34 of the Act itself. The relief thus sought in
the application, paper No.32A, was to the following
effect :-
"a. It is kindly prayed before the Hon'ble
Court an order may be passed in favour of
Applicant/Respondent for the release of entire
sum of Arbitral award of Rupees 7,90,88,151/-
(Seven Crores Ninety Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand
One Hundred Fifty One Rupees Only) passed by
the Hon'ble Arbitrator, Udham Singh Nagar, which
is deposited before the Hon'ble Court.
b. Any other relief/order or directions, which
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may
also be passed in favour of Applicant/Respondent
and against the Appellant in the interest of
Justice.
Dated 10/09/2020."
3. The said application has been considered by
the learned District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar and, by
virtue of the impugned order under challenge, i.e.
15.09.2020 (Annexure-14), the application preferred
by the petitioner for release of the amount has been
declined on the ground that since the provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, being a special
Statutes and it is a self contained statues, where the
provisions of the C.P.C. has not been made applicable,
hence, in view of the restrictions or limited exercise of
power under Section 36 of the Act, it was held that the
Court ceased with the proceedings under Section 34 of
the Act of 1996, cannot pass any order for releasing of
the amount, which is subject matter of award under
challenge before it as per the Act of 1956. The powers
under Section 34 of the District Judge, are confined
within the ambit of Section 36 of the Act, only and it
cannot be widened in its applicability by the exercise of
discretion to be exercised by the Court under Section
34 of the Act.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for
the parties at length and having gone through the
reason, which has been assigned by the Court; while
rejecting the petitioner's application, paper No.32-Ga,
denying to release the amount as sought for, this Court
is of the view that there is no apparent legal or
procedural anomaly, which has been committed by the
Court below, which would call for to be scrutinized in
the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India; because this Court is
of the view that there happens to be no apparent legal
flaw committed by the Court, while rejecting the
application of the petitioner, paper No. 32-Ga, for
releasing the awarded amount, which is a subject
matter under consideration in a proceeding under
Section 34 of the Act, because the relief sought by the
petitioner, was beyond the competence and was not
contemplated under the Act, and rightly so because any
release of amount, may frustrate the proceedings
under Section 34 of the Act.
5. But, however, considering the argument
extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, with
regard to the other financial constraints and the
financial burden which he has to carry on account of
the financial assistance, which he has taken from the
other financial institutions by mortgaging the property,
in question, which has been later acquired by the
respondents, he is unable to meet up his financial
liabilities, which is always mounting up cumulatively.
6. Exclusively without expressing any opinion on
merits of the matter, for the purposes of balancing the
equity, this Writ Petition is being disposed of with the
request to the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, to
decide the Arbitration Case Nos. 48 of 2019 and 47
of 2019, as expeditiously, as possible but not later
than three months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order. However, it is also further
made clear that the Court would avoid to grant
unnecessary adjournments, until and unless it becomes
emergent under any untoward circumstances.
7. Subject to the above directions, the Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Shiv
