State of Assam sought to quash an MSEFC arbitration award and pending money execution proceedings via writ petition. The court held the award must be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act within 120 days and that execution proceedings cannot be attacked under Article 226, dismissing the writ.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010042642017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6106/2017
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT.OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
VERSUS
MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL AND ANR PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 17-BAYS BUILDING, SECTOR-17, CHANDIGARH, PIN-160003.
2:M/S NIDHI PIPES LTD.
SCO-44 FIRST FLOOR SECTOR-26 MADHYA MARG CHANDIGARH PIN-160003
Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. I Borthakur, Government Advocate, Assam
Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. PK Roy, Senior Advocate
Page No.# 2/4
Mr. SK Chakraborty for respondent No.2
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
06.11.2024
Heard Mr. I Borthakur, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner being the State of Assam. Also heard Mr. PK Roy, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. SK Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.
Page No.# 3/4
be made within the four corners of Section 34 of the said Act of 1996. This Court has also taken due note of that in terms with Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996, the maximum period for challenging an award is 120 days, as has been well settled by various judgments of the Supreme Court. Taking into account the said aspect of the matter, the filing of the instant writ petition to challenge the said award dated 10.03.2014, that too, in the year 2017, not only is contrary to the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 1996, but also amounts to circumventing the provisions of Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the challenge to the award dated 10.03.2014 passed by the respondent No.1 cannot be sustained in the present writ petition.
Page No.# 4/4
in the meantime, the execution proceedings had proceeded and certain payments have also been made by the petitioner in pursuance to the award dated 10.03.2014 as could be seen from the instruction so placed by Mr. I Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf the writ petitioner during the course of the hearing.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Can an MSE Facilitation Council award be challenged via writ petition instead of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within its time limits?
Is initiation of execution proceedings for such a decree jurisdictionally erroneous, and can civil-court proceedings be challenged under Article 226?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & OrsRelied on¶4
(2015) 5 SCC 423 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
The State of Assam (Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Deptt. of Public Health Engineering)
Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Punjab at Chandigarh
M/s Nidhi Pipes Ltd.
Devashis Baruah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
