Disposed

S.R.Engineering Construction v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Aug 2016OMP (ENF.) (COMM.)/27/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition by a decree holder seeking permission to withdraw a deposit representing security for a judgment debtor. Court rejected the hardship plea unless a fresh bank guarantee was furnished and directed release of amount pending guarantee.

What did the court decide?

Amount deposited by judgment debtor along with accrued interest to be released to petitioner subject to furnishing an equivalent bank guarantee with interest undertaking.

S.R.Engineering Construction Vs Union of India & Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

¶4

- OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 27/2016

¶5

S.R.ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION ..... Decree Holder Mr. Ghanshyam Das Dhiman, in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Judgment Debtors Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, Senior Govt. counsel for R-1 to R-3.

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 30.11.2016 RP No. 521./2016 (review the order dated 8^th August 2016)

¶11

This is an application filed by the Applicant/Decree Holder (‘DH’) who appears in person seeking review of the order dated 8^th August 2016.

¶12

The grievance is that the petition before the Additional District Judge (‘ADJ’), Chandigarh filed by the Judgment Debtor (‘JD’) No. 1 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ('Act') is not being decided and in the meanwhile the Petitioner is deprived of the deposit of Rs. 48,40,431 made by JD No.1 in these proceedings.

¶13

The DH who appears in person produces a copy of order dated 23^rd October 2015 passed by the ADJ, Chandigarh returning the execution petition filed there by the DH for being presented in the Court of competent jurisdiction. This was because JD No. 1 arrayed in that petition, i.e., Union

¶14

of India, was shown to be headquartered in New Delhi. In any event since the petition under Section 34 of the Act challenging the impugned Award dated 16^th May 2015 was filed on 20^th August 2015 before the Court of the ADJ, Chandigarh and is still pending consideration, there is an automatic stay of enforcement of the Award. There is no ground made out for review of the order 8th August 2016.

¶15

The DH who appears in person states that he is facing tremendous hardship on account of the awarded amount not being able to be withdrawn by him.

¶16

In the circumstances, it is directed that subject to the DH furnishing a bank guarantee (‘BG’) for the amount deposited by JD No. 1 in this Court together with interest that may be accrued thereon upto the date of its release in favour of the DH, to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Original) of this Court, the aforesaid said amount deposited by the JD No.1 together with interest accrued thereron shall be released to the DH. The BG will include an undertaking that in the event JD No. 1 ultimately succeeds in the petition under Section 34 of the Act, the said amount released together with the accrued interest if any shall be refunded to JD No. 1 together with further amount of interest as may be directed by the Court.

¶17

For the above purpose, the matter be placed before the Registrar (Original) on 12^th January 2017. The review petition is disposed of.

¶18

S. MURALIDHAR, J

¶19

NOVEMBER 30, 2016/ Rm

S.R.Engineering Construction v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.R.Engineering Construction v. Union of India & Ors.

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

Similar cases

Mr. Paul (Richard) Berkowitz Vs Mr. Rajib Saha & Anr.

Sh. Rishi Pratap Singh Vs Dr. Chander Kanta Khan & Others

Anand Jalan Vs Bankey Bihari Mittal & Anr.

N.D.M.C. Vs Mohd. Usman & Ors.

Shilpa Tandon Vs Harish Chand Tandon & Anr.

Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs M/S Anesh Steel Crafts & Ors.