WPMS/2605/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 654 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                             AT NAINITAL
                    SHRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.

                                      AND

                        SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.

WRIT PETITION (MS) NO. 2605 OF 2021

9TH MARCH, 2022 Between:

Managing Director, Through its Executive Engineer, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Nagar, Post Office D.L.W. Varanasi -221004, U.P ..Petitioner.

    and
    The Union of India and others.                 ...Respondents

    Counsel for the petitioner:              Mr.   Yogesh    Kumar
                                             Sharma,    and     Mr.
                                             Rakesh Uttam Chandra
                                             Upadhyay,      learned
                                             counsel.

Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Virendra Kumar Kaparwan, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India.

                                 Ms.     Puja     Banga,
                                 learned Brief Holder for
                                 the       State       of
                                 Uttarakhand.

Upon hearing the learned counsel, the Court made the following:

JUDGMENT : (per Sri Justice S.K. Mishra, A.C.J.)

The learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to

withdraw the present application with liberty to file an

appropriate application before the learned Additional

District Judge (Commercial), Dehradun.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall file a

memo to that effect, which shall be kept on record.

3. The writ application is dismissed as withdrawn

with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate

application before the learned Additional District Judge

(Commercial), Dehradun (P-1) in Arbitration Case No.

48 of 2021 to reconsider the matter and to decide,

after hearing the respondent, the plea of the present

petitioner i.e. the appellant before the Additional

District Judge (Commercial), Dehradun to deposit 75%

of the awarded amount under challenge by subtracting

the amount already deposited in the first round of

litigation under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996. If such an application is filed, in

our opinion, the amount already paid by the petitioner

should be considered for the purpose of calculating the

percentage requisite of 75% of the amount awarded to

be deposited under Section 19 of the Micro, Small &

Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006 (for short

"MSMED Act"). However, the Additional District Judge

shall take a decision as per law after hearing both the

parties by passing a speaking order, as early as

possible. The petitioner is also at liberty to file an

appropriate application for non-disbursal of the amount

in favour of the respondents till the disposal of the

application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act i.e. Arbitration Case No. 48 of 2021.

4. No order as to costs.

5. In sequel thereto, pending application, if

any, also stands disposed of.

6. Urgent copy of the order be issued to the

parties as per rules.

____________

(S.K. MISHRA), A.C.J.

____________ R.C. KHULBE, J.

Dt: 09.03.2022 Rathour