Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Shailendra vs Commnr.Of State Excise Maharashtra on 4 April, 2014
¸9SLP(C) No. 6445 of 2014
1
ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.5 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).6445/2014
(From the judgement and order dated 12/12/2013 in WP No.
1048/2013 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT
NAGPUR)
SHAILENDRA AND ORS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
COMMNR.OF STATE EXCISE MAHARASHTRA & ORS Respondent(s)
(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
Date: 04/04/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.K. Katriar, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Rachhitta P. Rai, Adv.
Mr. S.K. Verma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv.
Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. The order of the High Court is set aside insofar as it observes that it is for the appropriate quasi-judicial authority to look into the application moved by the concerned party and leave it open for the parties to move the appropriate court under Section 9 of the Act for interim relief pending enforcement of the Award. We SLP(C) No. 6445 of 2014 2 make it clear that if such an application is filed, the appropriate Court will consider the same on its own merits without being influenced by the impugned order of the High Court.
[KALYANI GUPTA] [SHARDA KAPOOR]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE.] CA No........ @ SLP(C) No. 6445 OF 2014 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4410 OF 2014 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 6445 OF 2014] SHAILENDRA & OTHERS ..... APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF STATE EXCISE, MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS ..... RESPONDENTS O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. This matter relates to an excise licence and there is a dispute between the parties as to how the excise licence granted in favour of the firm Vidarbha Distillers is to be modified. The arbitrator has already given the award in the matter and both parties to the arbitration have challenged the Award of the Arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation, 1996 [for short ’the Act’] which is pending before the Civil Court at Nagpur. In the meanwhile, the appellants herein filed a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate relief pending the decision on the applications under Section 34 of the Act.
4. By the impugned order, the High Court has, CA No........ @ SLP(C) No. 6445 OF 2014 2 inter alia, held that whether the Award has become executable or whether any challenged part of the Award becomes executable, are questions which squarely arise for adjudication by the quasi judicial authority under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1970 which has to look into the application moved by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and the said authority has full jurisdiction to take an appropriate decision on the issue and has left it to the aggrieved party to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
5. In our view, as the dispute is now before the Civil Court in the form of challenge under Section 34 of the Act to the Award by both the parties, the Civil Court will have jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act to make an interim arrangement till the decision on the challenge under Section 34 of the Act. Section 9 makes it clear that the party may before or during arbitration proceedings or at any time after making of the Award but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36 of the Act apply to Court for various interim measures mentioned therein.
6. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court insofar as it observes that it is for the appropriate quasi-judicial authority to look into the application moved by the concerned CA No........ @ SLP(C) No. 6445 OF 2014 3 party and leave it open for the parties to move the appropriate court under Section 9 of the Act for interim relief pending enforcement of the Award. We make it clear that if such an application is filed, the appropriate Court will consider the same on its own merits without being influenced by the impugned order of the High Court.
........................J [A.K. PATNAIK] ........................J [N.V. RAMANA] NEW DELHI APRIL 04, 2014.