Bombay High Court
Union Of India Thr. Secretary, Ministry vs M/S. Seth Construction Co on 17 March, 2016
Author: R.K. Deshpande
Bench: R.K. Deshpande
1
fa60.99.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
First Appeal No.60 of 1999
1. Union of India,
through Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
New Delhi.
2. Union of India,
through Engineer-in-Chief,
Military Engineering Services,
Army Head quarters, Kashmir
House, New Delhi.
3. Union of India,
through Chief Engineer,
Military Engineering Services,
Hyderabad Zone,
Secunderabad.
4. Union of India,
through Commander Works
Engineer, Military Engineering
Services,
AFI Building, Nagpur.
5. Union of india,
through Garrison Engineer (FY),
Military Engineering Services,
Ordinance Factory,
Chandrapur. ... Appellants/
Ori. Defendants
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:19:55 :::
2
fa60.99.odt
M/s. Seth Construction Co.,
Registered Partnership Firm,
Registered under Provisions of
Partnership Act, through its Partner
Shri Yash Pal s/o late Shri Vidhya
Bhushan Seth,
Aged about 54 years,
Resident of Seth Niwas,
34, Byramji Town,
Nagpur. ... Respondent/
Ori. Plaintiff
Shri A. Kamale, Advocate, holding for Shri Rohit Deo, ASGI for
Appellants.
Shri D.V. Chauhan, Advocate for Respondent.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
th Date : 17 March, 2016 Oral Judgment :
1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. In Arbitration Case No.45 of 1995, filed under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur, by his judgment and order dated 25-8-1998, has rejected the objections to the executability ::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:19:55 ::: 3 fa60.99.odt of the award passed by the Arbitrator and the award has been made the rule of the Court directing the appellant-defendants to pay an amount of Rs.39,57,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff with an interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the case till its realization.
3. This appeal has been preferred by the Union of India challenging the decision of the Trial Court.
4. With the assistance of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, I have gone through the judgment and order delivered by the Trial Court and I find that the Trial Court has considered the question of moral misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator and the Trial Court has failed to look into the other objections which are raised by the appellant-defendants. There are several legal objections raised and those have not been considered by the Trial Court. Hence, the matter will have to be remanded back to the Trial Court after setting aside the impugned judgment and order, for fresh consideration.::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:19:55 ::: 4
fa60.99.odt
5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 25-8-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur, in Arbitration Case No.45 of 1995, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Trial Court to hear and decide it afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made by this Court.
6. The parties to appear before the Trial Court on 18-4-2016.
No fresh notices shall be issued to the parties concerned. The Trial Court to decide the matter within a period of six months thereafter.
7. R & P, if received, be sent back to the Trial Court immediately.
8. On 31-7-2000, this Court had passed an order as under :
" Heard learned counsel for both the sides.::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:19:55 ::: 5
fa60.99.odt Civil Application granted in terms of prayer clause of C.A. Withdrawal be permitted on decree-holder's submitting Bank guarantee to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar.
C.A. Stands disposed of."
9. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, it seems that the respondent-plaintiff has withdrawn the amount upon furnishing the bank guarantee. The respondent-plaintiff shall continue to keep the bank guarantee alive during the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court, and the Trial Court, after decision in the matter, shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with its decision in respect of the bank guarantee so furnished.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.
Judge.
Lanjewar,PS ::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:19:55 :::