M/S S.K. Dynamics Pvt. Ltd vs Prashant Garg
2024 Latest Caselaw 856 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

M/S S.K. Dynamics Pvt. Ltd vs Prashant Garg on 3 May, 2024

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Contempt Petition No.92 of 2024
M/s S.K. Dynamics Pvt. Ltd.                     ........Petitioner
                         Versus
Prashant Garg                              ........Respondent
Presence:-
     Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the
     petitioner.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner under Sections 12 & 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging deliberate and willful contempt of this Hon'ble Court's Order dated 27.08.2016 passed in Appeal from Order No.448 of 2016 and order dated 13.03.2023 passed in Appeal from Order No.88 of 2023 titled as "Center of Excellence in Disaster Mitigation and Management Vs. M/s S.K. Dynamics Pvt. Ltd. and Others".

3. The petitioner was granted a contract by respondent IIT, Roorkee on 10.03.2014. In that contract, a Bank Guarantee was given. According to the petitioner, the respondent-contemnor has encashed that Bank Guarantee.

4. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner moved an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as The Arbitration Act, 1996) before learned Additional District Judge, Haridwar and on 28.07.2015, learned ADJ, Haridwar has directed the respondent-contemnor to restore the status of Bank Guarantee and the parties were directed to maintain status quo.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-contemnor has preferred an appeal before this Court, being AO No.448 of 2016, in which the order, against which the contempt has been alleged, was passed on 27.08.2016. In between, the arbitration between the parties was allowed in favour of the petitioner vide award dated 05.05.2017 and the objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 against the award of the arbitrator has also finally dismissed vide order dated 30.01.2023.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Haridwar, in objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, the respondent-contemnor approached this Court by filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, as AO No.88 of 2023.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in AO No.88 of 2023, order has been passed on 13.03.2023 by the Division Bench of this Court, whereby, the Division Bench directed the respondent (petitioner herein) not to proceed with the execution of the Arbitral Award and the respondent (petitioner herein) was directed to withdraw the amount of Rs.3,84,29,692/- invested in the name of the Registrar, IIT, Roorkee, in TDR with the Union Bank of India, upon furnishing a solvent security for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Registrar, IIT, Roorkee.

8. Now, the petitioner is before this Court, by filing the present contempt of Courts proceeding.

9. Having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that the contempt petition is not maintainable simply for the reason that the order, of which the contempt is alleged, is of the year 2016, this contempt petition is hopelessly time barred. Secondly, the amount of Bank Guarantee has already been released in favour of the petitioner in AO No.88 of 2023.

10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the same transaction, a loss of around Rs.1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore only) was incurred to the petitioner, and, therefore, he moved this Contempt Petition.

11. Since, the appeal against the judgment and award dated 13.03.2023 passed by the Arbitrator is pending consideration before this Court, the same may be agitated in that appeal.

12. With these observations, the Contempt Petition is dismissed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.05.2024 PN