Calcutta High Court
Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India (S.E. Rly.) on 27 June, 2019
Author: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
Bench: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
OD-31 ORDER SHEET
E.C. No. 603 OF 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (S.E. RLY.)
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY
Date : 27th June, 2019.
Appearance:
Mr. Bijan Majumder, Adv.
... for petitioner.
Mr. Arun Mishra, Adv.
... for respondent.
The Court : This is an application at the instance of the claimant/award holder for executing the award dated June 27, 2018 made and published by the sole arbitrator against the present respondent, also the respondent in the arbitration. The present respondent is Union of India represented by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway who has his office at Garden Reach within the jurisdiction of this Court. By the said award dated June 27, 2018 arbitrator directed the respondent railway to pay Rs.50,69,415/-, together with interest pendente 2 lite and interest upon award at the rate of 8.5 percent, per annum.
Since respondent railway did not file any application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(in short "The Act of 1996") for setting aside of the award and refused to pay the awarded amount to the present petitioner, the claimant in arbitration, the later filed this execution application against the former. By an order dated December 19, 2018 a learned single Judge of this Court held that in the event there is no stay of operation of the arbitral award by the adjourned date, the award holder shall be entitled to press for the relief against the respondent.
It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate that the respondent has filed an application for stay of operation of the arbitral award before the learned District Judge of the civil Court at Jamshedpur. It is further submitted the present respondent has also filed an application for stay of operation of the arbitral award. In his usual fairness Mr. Mishra further 3 submitted that the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 filed by the present respondent has not yet been admitted. Consequently, there is no question for any direction being passed directing stay of operation of the arbitral award.
In the present case when the office of the General Manager, South Eastern Railway is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court the maintainability of the present application before this Court can hardly be challenged. Be that as it may, when the application filed by the respondent under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 has not yet been admitted and they have failed to obtain any order for stay of operation of the arbitral award this Court should proceed with the present execution application. This view is supported by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated August 08, 2018 passed in G.A. No 3232 of 2018 with A.P.O. No. 373 of 2018 & O.C.O. No. 2 of 2018(Pam Development Private Limited Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.). 4
There shall be an order of attachment of the account maintained by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway with the Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata to the tune of Rs.64,50,330/-.
Let this application, E. C. No. 603 of 2018 appear, on July 9, 2019 when the Reserve Bank of India shall file the report to this Court showing compliance of the above direction.
The petitioner shall forthwith communicate this order to the Reserve Bank of India.
(ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J.) mg