Madhya Pradesh High Court
Athletic Sangh M.P. Bhopal vs Union Of India on 22 March, 2022
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
WP No. 9512 of 2017
(ATHLETIC SANGH M.P. BHOPAL Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS)
Dated : 22-03-2022
Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. Krishnendra
Shukla for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhishek Arjaria, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
Mr. K.C.Ghildiyal, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.K.Rajak for Respondent No.4.
Mr. Ajay Gupta, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajeev Mishra & Ms. Sakshi Pawar for Respondent No.5.
Petitioner has filed I.A.No.3110/2022 and made a prayer for issuance of ad- interim direction to Respondent No.3 to allow petitioner-Association to permit participation of teams of petitioner-Association in 56th National Cross Country Championships 2022 to be held at Kohima Nagaland from 26.03.2022 and further allow petitioner-Association to participate in 25th National Federation Cup Senior Athletics Competition 2022 scheduled to be held at Calicut Kerala from 02.04.2022 and other tournaments and championships to be organized in Calendar year 2022.
2. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner is State Level Association representing Athletic in State of MP. It is submitted that petitioner-Society is recognized by Madhya Pradesh Olympic Association. However, Athletic Federation of India is treating Respondent No.5 i.e. Madhya Pradesh Athletic Association as body representing sportsmen/athletics for sports activities in State of MP. It is further submitted that Indian Olympic Association- Respondent No.2, who has been directed to decide the dispute between petitioner and Respondent No.5 had referred the matter to Chairman, Affiliation and Dispute Commission. Said Commission had referred the matter to Indian Court of Arbitration of Sports. When reference was made, a common consent was given by all concerned that Athletic Sangh MP-Petitioner shall continue to represent Athletics in State of MP. During pendency of Arbitration proceedings, Respondent No.5 violated directives of Respondent No.2 and is representing State of MP in Signature SAN Not Verified field of athletics. In said circumstances, petitioner was forced to file Digitally signed by NEETI TIWARI Date: 2022.04.05 17:10:56 IST 2 W.P.No.14110/2012 and by interim order dated 12.02.2015, petitioner was permitted to represent the State in Sports of Athletics. Said writ petition bearing No.14110/2012 was disposed off vide order dated 12.02.2015 directing parties to resolve their disputes through Arbitration and meanwhile interim arrangement made by parties is to be continue. Arbitration Tribunal was constituted and award was passed on 17.06.2016. Said award was passed in favour of Respondent No.5- Association and said association is to represent game of Athletics in State of Madhya Pradesh and Respondent No.3 was also directed to grant affiliation to Respondent No.5. Petitioner has preferred an application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act for setting aside award dated 17.06.2016. Impugned award has been stayed by order dated 08.09.2016. Petitioner- Association has also filed an application under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, wherein ex-parte injunction has been passed restraining Respondent Nos.3 & 5 to represent sports of Athletics in State of Madhya Pradesh. Petitioner has filed an application under Section 151 of CPC in Arbitration case to issue direction to Respondent No.3 to recognize the petitioner as Sports Body representing State of Madhya Pradesh in Athletics. Said application was allowed vide order dated 29.09.2016. In Background of aforesaid facts and circumstances and orders passed by High Court and Arbitration Tribunal, petitioner prays that application for interim relief may be allowed and Athletes may be permitted to participate in Marathon to be held at Kohima and in games to be held at Kerala.
3. Mr. Ajay Gupta, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for Respondent opposed the application for grant of interim relief. It is submitted that High Court has passed orders in writ petition for resolving the dispute by Arbitration. Arbitration award has been passed on 17.06.2016 in favour of Respondent No.5. No interim direction has been issued in favour of petitioner. Last date for filing entries in Marathon has already expired and entries for said sports have been sent by Respondent No.5. In view of above, no relief can be granted to petitioner and application for interim relief may be dismissed. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for Signature SAN Not Verified respondent has relied on amended provision of Section 36 of Arbitration and Digitally signed by NEETI TIWARI Date: 2022.04.05 Conciliation Act, 1996. Relying on said provision, it is argued that there will no 17:10:56 IST 3 automatic stay on filing application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. He relied on judgment reported in 2018 (6) SCC 287 - Board of Control for Cricket In India Vs. Kochi Cricket Private Limited, wherein it is stated that amended provision will also be applicable in pending cases. Learned Sr. Counsel relying on said judgment submitted that there is no substantive vested right in judgment debtor to resist execution. Section 36 as substituted would apply even to pending Section 34 application on the date of commencement of amended Act. In view of aforesaid submission, prayer is made for dismissal of application for grant of interim relief.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties.
5. Petitioner is claiming interim relief on strength of arrangement made by Madhya Pradesh Olympic Association on 09.09.2011 between three bodies i.e. Petitioner, Respondent No.4 & 5. After said arrangement, arbitration award has been passed in favour of Respondent No.5 on 17.06.2016 award was stayed vide order dated 08.09.2016. Award was stayed on strength of Section 34 of un- amended Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Award is presumed to be stayed on filing of application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Petitioner had filed an application under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act before Civil Court and said application was decided vide order dated 29.09.2016 and direction was issued to parties to maintain status-quo till application under Section 9 is decided. Interim orders passed under Section 9 of the Act and interim stay granted over award in proceedings under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is of no help to petitioner. In present case, arbitration tribunal constituted has passed award and, therefore, said interim direction is of no value. Court committed error of law in invoking powers u/S 9 to give interim directions despite Bar created under Section 9(3) of Act of 1996 and overlooking the fact that aggrieved party has efficacious remedy under Section 36(3) of Act of 1996 for stay of operation of arbitral award. District Judge has considered the application for stay on award dated 17.06.2016 on basis of un- Signature SAN Verified Not amended provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and has held that Digitally signed by filing of application under Section 34 will amount to stay over award and execution NEETI TIWARI Date: 2022.04.05 17:10:56 IST 4 cannot be done. As per the amended provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and judgment by the Apex Court in case of Board of Control for Cricket In India (supra), amended provisions will be applicable in pending applications, therefore, specific order of stay is to be passed on filing of application for stay and mere filing of application u/S 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will not amount to staying the award. Stay order dated 08.09.2016 is inconsequential and passed dehors provision of law.
6. In view of above, no relief at this stage can be granted to petitioner. Application (I.A.No.3110/2022) filed by petitioner for interim relief is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
nd
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETI TIWARI
Date: 2022.04.05
17:10:56 IST