M/S Lalji Super Speciality Hospital and Research Centre Gorakhpur Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Enarch Consultants Pvt. Ltd. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M/S Lalji Super Speciality Hospital and Research Centre Gorakhpur Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Enarch Consultants Pvt. Ltd. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Order set aside; learned Single Judge requested to hear and decide the Section 34 petition on its merits and in accordance with law; appeal disposed of along with all pending applications.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Single Judge's refusal to hear the Appellant's objections under Section 34 of the Act until deposit of the decretal amount amounts to a rejection of the Section 34 application against which an appeal is maintainable under Section 37 of the Act. +1 more

Court's answer

The refusal of the learned Single Judge to hear the Section 34 application amounts to a rejection of that application, against which an appeal is maintainable under Section 37 of the Act.

Ratio / Principle

An order refusing to hear Section 34 objections pending deposit of the decretal amount is neither envisaged under Section 34 of the Act nor called for.

Key takeaways

Objections filed under Section 34 of the Act are required to be decided by the Court.ratio¶19
Failure to deposit the amount in the execution petition cannot constitute a ground to refuse the hearing of the petition under Section 34 of the Act.ratio¶20
The Impugned Order is set aside and the learned Single Judge is requested to proceed to hear and decide the Section 34 petition on its merits and in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration — Section 34 objections — refusal to hear pending deposit of decretal amount — Delhi High Court Division Bench (Anil Kshetarpal & Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.) in FAO(OS)(COMM) 277/2024 under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 set aside the Single Judge's order dated 08.08.2024 in OMP(COMM) 190/2023, whereby the Appellant's Section 34 objections were to be heard only upon deposit of the decretal amount directed by the Executing Court's order dated 27.02.2024. Held: (i) refusal to hear amounts to rejection of the Section 34 application, against which an appeal lies under Section 37; (ii) such an order is neither envisaged under Section 34 nor called for; (iii) Section 34 objections must be decided by the Court; (iv) non-deposit in the execution petition cannot be a ground to refuse hearing of the Section 34 petition. Impugned Order set aside; Single Judge to decide the Section 34 petition on its merits; appeal and pending applications disposed of (03.12.2025).

$~6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- FAO(OS) (COMM) 277/2024, CM APPL. 70314/2024 (Stay) & CM APPL. 70316/2024 (Delay of 27 days in filing the appeal)

M/S LALJI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE GORAKHPUR PVT LTD.

.....Appellant

Through: Mr. Varun Shankar, Adv.

versus

M/S ENARCH CONSULTANTS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sonal Kumar Singh, Mr. Yashvardhan Singh Gohil & Ms. Dimple Khaturia, Advs. Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil), GNCTD

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R % 03.12.2025

The present Appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 [“ Act ”] read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and Section 10 of The Delhi High Court Act read with Section 13 of the Commercial Court Act, 2015, assailing the Order dated 08.08.2024 [“ Impugned Order ”] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP (COMM) 190/2023. By way of the Impugned Order, the learned Single Judge has held that the Appellant’s objections under Section 34 of the Act cannot be heard until the Appellant deposits the decretal amount.

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that the

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2025 at 11:45:58

present appeal is not maintainable, as the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act is still pending consideration.

However, a perusal of the Impugned Order makes it evident that the learned Single Judge has refused to hear the application under Section 34 of the Act on the ground that the Appellant has allegedly failed to comply with the Order passed by the Executing Court on 27.02.2024, directing the Appellant to deposit the decretal amount.

The refusal of the learned Single Judge to hear the matter amounts to a rejection of the application under Section 34 of the Act against which an appeal is maintainable under Section 37 of the Act. Moreover, such an order is neither envisaged under Section 34 of the Act, nor is it called for.

Objections filed under Section 34 of the Act are required to be decided by the Court.

Failure to deposit the amount in the execution petition cannot constitute a ground to refuse the hearing of the petition under Section 34 of the Act. 7. In view of the above, the Impugned Order is set aside. The learned Single Judge is requested to proceed to hear and decide the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act on its merits and in accordance with law.

The present appeal, alongwith all pending application(s), if any, is disposed of.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. DECEMBER 03, 2025/ v /her

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2025 at 11:45:58