Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S. Srivalli Shipping And Transports ... vs Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (Rinl) on 9 May, 2022
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.12 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 5682-5683/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-09-2021
in IA No. 3/2021 in IA No.1/2020 in COMCA No.6/2020 and 29-10-2021
in IA No. 4/2021 in IA No. 3/2021 in IA No.1/2020 in COMCA
No.6/2020 passed by the High Court Of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati)
M/S. SRIVALLI SHIPPING AND TRANSPORTS
PVT. LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED (RINL) & ANR Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.47539/2022-ADDITION / DELETION /
MODIFICATION PARTIES )
Date : 09-05-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. D. Seshadri Naidu, Adv.
Mr. Pai Amit, Adv. on Record
Ms. Shivali Chaudhary, Adv.
Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Siddhath Chapalgaonkar, Adv.
Mr. Poornachandiran R., Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv
Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv
Mr. Akhil Abraham Roy, Adv
Mr. Vijay Valsan, Adv
M/S. K J John And Co, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Having heard Shri D. Seshadri Naidu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Pratap Venugopal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and considering the fact that the appeal before the High Court is under Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.05.14 Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and even 12:41:44 IST Reason:
under the Statute the judgment debtor is required to deposit 50% of contd..
- 2 -
the amount due and payable under the award and as per the earlier order, the respondent/judgment debtor was directed to deposit only 50% of the amount due and payable under the award and the rest of the award was ordered to be stayed and on such deposit, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the said 50% of the amount without any security, we modify the impugned order passed by the High Court and permit the petitioner to withdraw the 50% of the amount awarded without furnishing any security, however, subject to the Managing Director of the petitioner Company filing an undertaking before the High Court which shall be backed by the Resolution of the Company that in case the petitioner loses in the appeal, the same shall be repaid/returned with interest that may be ordered. Such an undertaking backed by the Resolution shall be filed before the High Court before the petitioner is permitted to withdraw 50% of the awarded amount, so deposited.
With this, the Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR