Dismissed

State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Pubilc Works Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.and 2 Others v. M/S Dsc Ltd. New Delhi Thru. Its Director Sri Harminder Singh and Another

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2024/30/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a civil miscellaneous review application filed by the State of U.P. against an order dismissing a writ petition challenging an executing court's decision to release funds from an arbitration award without demand for security. The court found no apparent error on the face of the record.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed as misconceived; no error apparent on the face of the record found.

State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19509

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 30 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Pubilc Works Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.And 2 Others Opposite Party :- M/S Dsc Ltd. New Delhi Thru. Its Director Sri Harminder Singh And Another Counsel for Applicant :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the review-petitioners.

¶7

The instant review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 19.9.2023 passed in a petition under Article 227 No. 3272 of 2023 whereby the petition was dismissed leaving it open for the review-petitioners to seek remedy before the executing court. The instant review petition is also accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay.

¶8

Learned counsel for the review-petitioners has submitted that the issue in question arises out of an arbitration award. Apart from the instant petition, there were four other similar matters and in the aforesaid other matters, the parties have been referred for mediation for resolving their disputes. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is urged that since this matter which too was similar to the aforesaid other matters, hence the order permitting the petitioners to raise their objections before the executing court may be reviewed and this petition may be connected with the aforesaid matters and referred to the medication centre of this Court for early resolution of disputes between the parties.

¶9

The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record, apparently, the issue before this Court in the petition under Article 227 No. 3272 of 2023 was a challenge to the order passed by the Commercial Court-I, Lucknow dated 25.4.2023 passed in Execution Case No. 617 of 2017. The executing court while requiring the reviewpetitioners, herein, for depositing the amount in terms of award before the executing court and from the said amount, a sum of Rs. 3,27,26,828/- was released in favour of the private respondents in whose favour the award was subsisting.

¶10

The contention of the learned counsel for the review-petitioners before the Court seized with the matter at the first instance was that the executing court has committed an error in releasing the

¶11

said amount without calling upon the private respondents to give a security. This contention did not find favour with the Court while dealing with the provisions as applicable to execution of an award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and, as a result, the petition was dismissed and the Court had granted liberty to the petitioners to raise their objections before the executing court.

¶12

As far as delay is concerned, it may not detain the Court for long as realistically speaking where there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and there is no period of limitation under the High Court Rules of 1952 for filing a review in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, hence the issue of delay is being ignored. [See Mohd. Jahan Begum and Another v. Board of Revenue and others, 2016 (11) ADJ 110].

¶13

In this light of the matter, in case if in any other case, the parties have been referred to mediation, they are welcome to get their disputes resolved amicably. Even in the instant review petition, the matter has not yet been finally decided by the Commercial Court and the parties can still negotiate for settlement. Nothing prevents the review-petitioner to seek settlement or attempt any mediation, but the counsel for the review-petitioner could not point out any error much less an error apparent on the face of the record. Apparently, the instant review is a misconceived endeavour on behalf of the State.

¶14

In light of the aforesaid, the instant review petition is misconceived and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.3.2024 Shravan

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Pubilc Works Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.and 2 Others v. M/S Dsc Ltd. New Delhi Thru. Its Director Sri Harminder Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Pubilc Works Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.and 2 Others v. M/S Dsc Ltd. New Delhi Thru. Its Director Sri Harminder Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abdul Kayyoom and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Gonda Now Balrampur and 3 Others

Ram Lakhan Vs Ram Naresh and 2 Others

Smt. Pushpa Gupta Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya and 7 Others

Smt.Karamraji Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and Others

Shiv Shankar and Others Vs Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and Another

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs Additional Civil Judge Junior Division Gonda and 3 Others