Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Shivhare Road Lines Thr vs M/S Hpcl And Mittal Energy Ltd Thr on 31 March, 2016
1
W.P.No.6931/2015
(M/s Shivhare Road Lines Vs. M/s HPCL & Mittal Energy Limited)
31/03/2016
Shri Arun Dudawat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.K.Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.
This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 09/10/2014 passed in case No.1082013 Arbitration by the trial Court rejecting an application for release of the amount deposited by the respondents in respect of part of claim awarded by the arbitrator. However, application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is pending consideration seeking setting aside of the award on the issue decided against it. Therefore, the trial Court relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Aluminium Co. Ltd., vs. Pressteel & Fabrications (P) Ltd., and another 2004(1) SCC 540 has concluded that once the award itself is under consideration before it, no such prayer can be acceded to as the same shall tantamount to execution of the award.
Learned counsel for the petitioner taking exception to the aforesaid order contends that as objection to the award has been preferred against part of the claim rejected by the arbitrator and as the respondents have deposited the amount in respect of part of claim in favour of the petitioner by the 2 W.P.No.6931/2015 (M/s Shivhare Road Lines Vs. M/s HPCL & Mittal Energy Limited) arbitrator, the petitioner should have been allowed to withdraw the amount already deposited as there is no statutory bar under the provisions of the Act.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order passed by the trial Court.
Having perused the order impugned, this Court is of the view that the award is put to challenge by the petitioner himself under section 34 of the Act, therefore, until and unless the proceedings thereunder are concluded, the petitioner cannot insist for execution of part of the award as the same is not severable. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the trial Court by passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(Rohit Arya) Judge b/-