Remanded

Janaki Mangaraj v. Project Director,Project Implemjentation Unit

Orissa HC12 Oct 2022ARBA/37/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted that the arbitral award suffered inordinate delay of over three years. Relying on Supreme Court guidelines in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, the Court set aside the impugned award under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC and restored the reference, directing expedited proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award set aside; reference restored; lower court directed to deal expeditiously remeasurement and interest.

Janaki Mangaraj Vs Project Director,Project Implemjentation Unit — Arbitration | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

ARBA No.37 of 2018

¶3

(Through Hybrid mode)

¶4

…. Madhavi Mangaraj and others Appellants

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Project Director, Project Implementation Unit and others

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

Advocates appeared in this case:

¶9

For Appellants: Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Sr. Advocate For Respondents: Mr. U. C. Mohanty, Advocate

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

¶11

JUDGMENT 12.10.2022

¶12

1. Mr. Sarangi, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of appellants. He submits, part of his clients’ house was acquired for expansion of National Highway 5. In his clients’ writ petition WP(C) no.2246 of 2004, there was order dated 15^th October, 2004, directing fresh measurement to be made by the Assistant Engineer. He submits, the measurement directed was of the entire house, as would be affected by demolition of part thereof. On basis of the fresh measurement, there was assessment. His client being aggrieved by the assessment had claimed enhancement. In the reference,

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

argument was concluded on 25^th May, 2007. The award was purportedly published on 26^th February, 2010 but delivered to his clients on 5^th August, 2010. He submits, the award passed after such long delay is by itself illegal. Without prejudice he submits, the assessed amount at Rs.2,58,648/- was paid but there ought to have been pendente lite interest granted by the arbitrator, under section 31(7)(a) in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Furthermore, there was enhancement by approximately Rs.27,000/-. This was not paid. In the award there ought to also have been direction for payment of interest thereon under both clauses (a) and (b) in sub-section (7) of section 31.

¶16

2. On delay in making and publishing the award Mr. Sarangi relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318 . He submits, anguish of the Supreme Court was directed at High Courts in India. Guidelines were framed. He submits, they are applicable to the Court below in having kept the matter pending as reserved for passing of award for almost three

¶17

years assuming, though not admitting the award was published on 26^th February, 2010. Guideline no.(v) given in

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

// 3 //

¶20

paragraph-10 of the judgment is extracted and reproduced below.

¶21

“ (v) If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months, any of the parties of the said lis shall be entitled to move an application before the chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other Bench for fresh arguments. It is open to the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any other order as he deems fit in the circumstances.”

¶22

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent. He submits, the reference was kept pending on order of stay obtained by petitioner. He refers to paragraph-3 in order dated 26^th February, 2010 made in the reference.

¶23

4. On query from Court Mr. Mohanty submits, his client’s instruction is to dispute that argument was concluded on 25^th May, 2007. Mr. Sarangi refers to extract of orders passed in the arbitration case bearing orders dated 25^th May, 2007 and 10^th August, 2007. The orders are reproduced below.

¶24

“25.5.2007 – Advocate for both parties present. Heard. Both parties are directed to file written note of argument.

¶25

Page 3 of 5

¶26

// 4 //

¶27

Put up for orders on 10.8.2007.

Dictated.

Sd/-

COLLECTOR, KHURDA

10.8.2007 - One Braja Kishore Mangaraj authorized representative of the petitioner Smt. Janaki-Mangaraj has filed hazira. Heard. Orders not ready.

¶32

Put up on 24.8.2007 for orders.

¶33

Dictated,

¶34

Sd/- /- COLLECTOR, KHURDA.”

¶35

5. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of respondent no.3.

¶36

6. In paragraph-9 of Anil Rai (supra) the Supreme Court

¶37

said that it is true, for the High Courts, no period for pronouncement of judgment is contemplated either under the Civil Procedure Code or the Criminal Procedure Code, but as pronouncement of the judgment is a part of the justice dispensation system, it has to be without delay. Hence, guidelines were provided for High Court Judges. This Bench accepts those guidelines and makes it applicable to the case at hand since, the reference was by operation of provisions in

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

// 5 //

¶40

National Highways Act, 1956 and though conducted under provisions in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the provisions regarding termination of mandate, as having undergone amendment, make it all the more necessary for application of the guidelines. Court is convinced that delay in making and publishing the award was more than three years,

¶41

Considering petitioner’s assertion that the award was received

¶42

on 5^th August, 2010.

¶43

7. Rule 33 in order 41, Code of Civil Procedure provides

¶44

for power of Court of appeal. In exercise of such power in the facts and circumstances, impugned award is set aside. The reference is restored. The Court below will expeditiously deal with the reference and factor in petitioner’s contention on remeasurement and interest to be awarded under section 31(7) in the 1996 Act. Respondents will be entitled to urge their contention for mitigation on award of interest.

¶45

8. The appeal is disposed of.

¶46

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶47

Sks

¶48

Page 5 of 5

Janaki Mangaraj v. Project Director,Project Implemjentation Unit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janaki Mangaraj v. Project Director,Project Implemjentation Unit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudarsan Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Sushil Ku.Nanda Vs State of Orissa

Jollyrani Mohapatra Vs LIC of India,Mumbai

Simadri Nimalpuri Vs State of Odisha

Samanta Naik Vs State of Odisha

United Samiti Action, Kendrapara Vs State of Odisha