Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (1.07 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 36 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
M/S. Dewan Chand vs Union Of India & Anr. on 23 April, 2015
11. On this aspect, the petitioner has placed reliance on four
judgments to oppose release of the deposited amounts in favour of the
applicant today which have been carefully considered by this Court. I
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned OMP(COMM) 484-2020 Page 10 of 15
By:MANJU BHATT
Signing Date:05.12.2020
20:20:59
find that the decision in Dewan Chand (supra) is not applicable here
since the claim raised in that case was for an amount which did not
form a part of the award which was under challenge, but was rather
for certain bank charges which the executing court had held it entitled
to. The decision in PSLR Chettiar (supra) is also not applicable to
this case since this Court is not sitting in appellate jurisdiction over a
money decree, rather it is dealing with an award and, as discussed
hereinabove, the parameters of conditional deposit in the case of a
money decree and arbitration need not necessarily be the same.
Ntpc Limited vs Ritwik Project Pvt. Ltd on 14 October, 2020
[OMP(Comm) 144/2019 order dated 30.07.2020] and NTPC v.
Ritwik Project Pvt. Ltd. [OMP(COMM)503/2020 order dated
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned OMP(COMM) 484-2020 Page 6 of 15
By:MANJU BHATT
Signing Date:05.12.2020
20:20:59
14.10.2020], all in order to contend that the deposit of the awarded
amount by the party challenging the award for obtaining a stay
thereon, is not akin to paying the money to the opposite party. She,
therefore, submits that this Court ought to keep this principal in
account and not permit any release in favour of the respondent
without any guarantee. Moreover, she has drawn the attention of this
Court to its recent decision dated 28.07.2020 dismissing OMP(I) 150
of 2020, which was a Section 9 petition preferred by the respondent
seeking certain interim reliefs with respect to the bank guarantees it
had furnished to the petitioner. It is her contention that if the Court did
not find any merit in the contentions of the respondent at that time but
instead took the view that the respondent had not been carrying out
work at the requisite pace, then that on its own sufficiently bolsters
the case of the petitioner in its Section 34 petition. She finally submits
that in the light of the respondent's own claims of financial troubles
and the fact that the petitioner is a public sector undertaking, it is all
the more necessary to protect the petitioner's interest by dismissing
this application and rejecting the respondent's prayer to be allowed to
forego the requirement of furnishing sufficient security while seeking
release of the amounts accruing to it under an award which is yet to
withstand the scrutiny of appellate proceedings.
1