Disposed

E-City Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Rpresentative v. Moksh Innovations Inc. a Sole Propriety Concern Thru. Proprietor, Mr. Akshay Kumar Thakur

Allahabad HC30 May 2024A227/2676/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 227 sought a direction for early disposal of an application under Section 36 for execution of an arbitral award, with the related Section 34 challenge also pending before Commercial Court No.2, Lucknow. With consent, the court directed decision of the Section 34 application within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Commercial Court No.2, Lucknow to decide the Section 34 application within four months; liberty to seek expedition of Section 36 execution thereafter.

E-City Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized… — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49784

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2676 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- E-City Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Rpresentative Respondent :- Moksh Innovations Inc. A Sole Propriety Concern Thru. Proprietor, Mr. Akshay Kumar Thakur Counsel for Petitioner :- Pushpila Bisht Counsel for Respondent :- Piyush Kumar Agrawal

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Kumar Agrawal for the respondents.

¶7

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a leased license agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 1st February, 2017 for a period of three years but subsequently it seems that dispute had arisen between them and according to clause 19 of the agreement the dispute was referred for arbitration. The parties had appeared in the arbitration process and the award was passed on 4.7.2012. Against the award dated 4.7.2012 the respondents had moved an application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before District Judge, Lucknow which has been registered as arbitration case No.10 of 2013 which has been transferred to Commercial Court No.2, as arbitration case No.261 of 2018 which is still pending.

¶8

On the other hand, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 for execution of the award on 4.7.2012 which is pending since more than three years. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking a direction for expediting the award which is pending for last three years. In effect, the petitioner prayed for expeditious disposal of the application under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 .

¶9

After arguing the matter at some length learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner shall be substantially redressed in case application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 as well as application of the petitioner for execution of the award under Section 36 are decided.

¶10

Learned counsel for the opposite party does not object to the prayer made by the petitioner.

¶11

Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the present

¶12

petition is disposed of with a direction to the Commercial Court No.2, Lucknow to consider and decide the application under Section 34 which is registered as case No.261 of 2018, expeditiously, say within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him in case there is no legal impediment in accordance with law.

¶13

The parties have assured this Court that they will cooperate in the proceedings before the Commercial Court in rendering the decision on application under Section 34. It shall be open to the petitioner to move appropriate application for expediting the proceedings under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 after disposal of the application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In case, such an application is moved the concerned court shall pass appropriate orders for expediting the proceedings within two weeks thereafter and if it is found that urgency is made out it shall expedite the execution proceedings in accordance with law.

¶14

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 23.7.2024 RKM.

¶16

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

E-City Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Rpresentative v. Moksh Innovations Inc. a Sole Propriety Concern Thru. Proprietor, Mr. Akshay Kumar Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E-City Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Rpresentative v. Moksh Innovations Inc. a Sole Propriety Concern Thru. Proprietor, Mr. Akshay Kumar Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Vimlesh and Others Vs Board of Revenue, Lucknow Thru. Member and Others

Suneel Chirwal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Section 9 Up Government and 4 Others

Tulsi Ram Yadav Vs Addl. Collector Administration Pratapgarh and 2 Others

Narendra Kumar Mishra and 3 Others vs Addl. Collector Distt- Pratapgarh and 3 Others

Ram Pal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 11 Others

Kamlesh Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 13 Others