Allowed

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Dy. General Manager(Now Superintending Engineer)Etdc, Lucknow v. M/S Prem Conductors Private Limited,Ahmedabad Thru. Its Director

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2024A227/3767/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders dismissing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and a subsequent recall application due to the petitioner's non-appearance. The High Court, exercising supervision under Article 227, allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the petitioner to deposit the decretal amount to restore proceedings for expedit

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 11.10.2023 and 28.03.2014 set aside. Petitioner directed to deposit entire decretal amount. Proceedings under Section 34 restored. Respondent at liberty to seek 50% release.

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Dy. General Manager(Now… — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:59603

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3767 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Dy. General Manager(Now Superintending Engineer)Etdc, Lucknow Respondent :- M/S Prem Conductors Private Limited,Ahmedabad Thru. Its Director Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Jauhari Counsel for Respondent :- Sudhanshu Chauhan

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Order on Civil Misc. (Amendment) Application No. 3 of 2024

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed the application for amendment seeking amendment in the memo of writ petition.

¶8

Perused the application.

¶9

Application for amendment is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to make necessary amendment in the memo of writ petition during course of the day.

¶10

Order on Writ Petition

¶11

Heard Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manish Jauhari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶12

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent had participated in a tender proceedings published by the petitioner and was declared successful for supply of 250 Kms. ACSR Moose Conductors and was also given work order on 14.06.1996. During performance of the work certain disputes and differences arose between the parties, on account of which the respondent invoked arbitration clause and the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator for adjudication. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties, passed award dated 03.10.0 wherein claim of respondent was partly allowed.

¶13

The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 03.10.2005, moved an application under Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for setting aside the award before the District Judge, Lucknow. The said case was registered as Regular Suit

¶14

No. 1 of 2006, titled as U.P. Power Corporation Vs. M/s Prem Conductors Private Limited.

¶15

During pendency of application, the respondent moved an application seeking direction to petitioner to deposit 75% of the awarded amount, but due to non appearance on behalf of petitioner, application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986 was dismissed on 28.03.2014. The petitioner thereafter, moved an application for recall on 22.01.2015 alongwith an application for condonation of delay and prayed for restoration of Original Suit. The application for recall of order dated 28.03.2014 was dismissed on 11.10.2023, against which present writ petition has been filed.

¶16

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for non appearance on 28.03.2014 and consequently the District Judge should have allowed the application for recall and restored the matter to its original number.

¶17

By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 28.03.2014 whereby application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was dismissed for want of prosecution as well as order dated 11.10.2023 thereby application for recall of order dated 28.03.2023 as been rejected.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the matter up to some length submits that petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the entire decreetal amount before the Trial Court and also he would have no objection in case portion of the said amount would be directed to be released in favour of respondent.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent also does not raise any objection with regard to limited prayer made by the petitioner.

¶20

Accordingly, in the light of above and without entering into the merits of the case, following directions are passed :

¶21

(i) Petitioner is directed to deposit entire decreetal amount alongwith up to date interest within a period of three weeks from today.

¶22

(ii) On deposit of aforesaid amount, the proceedings before the District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would stand restored and the respondent will also be at liberty to move an application for release of 50% of

¶23

the amount deposited by the petitioner.

¶24

(iii) On the application moved by the respondent for release of 50% of the amount in their favour, the District Judge shall pass necessary directions/orders for release of the said amount in their favour subject to security/satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶25

(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Lucknow on 23.09.2024.

¶26

The impugned orders dated 11.10.2023, passed by the Commercial Court No. 1, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 48-C of 2015 (New No. 234 of 2023) as well as order dated 28.03.2014, are hereby set aside.

¶27

The writ petition stands allowed .

¶28

Considering that application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is pending since 2005, the District Judge, Lucknow is directed to expedite the proceedings and make all efforts to dispose of the same expeditiously, say within next three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶29

The parties undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the District Judge and they shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment.

¶30

Order Date :- 30.8.2024 A. Verma

¶31

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Dy. General Manager(Now Superintending Engineer)Etdc, Lucknow v. M/S Prem Conductors Private Limited,Ahmedabad Thru. Its Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Dy. General Manager(Now Superintending Engineer)Etdc, Lucknow v. M/S Prem Conductors Private Limited,Ahmedabad Thru. Its Director

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

Chikan Kadhai Audhyogik Sahkari Samite Ltd. Sitapur Thru. Secretary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Lko and 5 Others

M/S Alok Rubber Industries Thru. Proprietor Sri Nalin Kumar Sharma and Anothr Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lko. and 2 Others

Sudhakar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Ram Nath vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya and 7 Others

Retired Inspector (Armed Police ) Arunendra Pratap Singh Pno 852460713 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of (Police Services) Lucknow and 2 Others

Smt. Manoj Bala Sharma vs Dr. Sanmuga Sundram, Prin. Secy. Basic Education, Govt. of U.P., Lko. and Others