WPMS/1799/2018
2023 Latest Caselaw 1954 UK

               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.           or proceedings
      Date                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No           or directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                 WPMS 1799/2018
                                 Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurbachan Singh, applicant/respondent no. 1 in-person.

(2) This writ petition was filed by National Highways Authority of India and it was disposed of vide order dated 29.6.2018. Operative portion of the said order is reproduced below:

"Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is provided that petitioner shall deposit the entire amount, as awarded by the Arbitrator, within two weeks from today, out of which 50% of the amount may be released in favour of respondent no. 1 & 2 and the remaining amount shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in a nationalized bank for one year.

With aforesaid observation and direction writ petition stands disposed of."

(3) Respondent no. 1 has sought modification of the aforesaid order on the ground that applications filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been rejected, therefore, remaining 50 per cent amount, which is lying invested in fixed deposit, may also directed to be released.

(4) Per contra, Mr. Naresh Pant, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that respondent no. 1 has challenged the judgment rendered by the District Judge in an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and National Highways Authority of India is also proposing to file appeal shortly. He further submits that till decision in the said appeal, the money may not be released as it will be difficult to recover the same in the event petitioner's appeal is allowed. He further contended that petitioner has remedy under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(5) Be that as it may, since respondent no. 1 has already filed an appeal and petitioner is also proposing to file appeal in very near future, as stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, no good ground is made out for allowing the modification application (MCC/8911/2023). Even otherwise also, interest of respondent no. 1 is protected as the remaining 50 per cent amount is invested in an interest earning instrument.

(6) In such view of the matter, modification application is rejected.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 28.7.2023 Pr