Allowed

Tecnimont India Private Limited. Tecnimont House v. Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited

Telangana HC1 Nov 2018CRP/4640/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging the stay order granted by the Commercial Court. The lower court had required only a 15% deposit on the basis that the case involved a common award for two contracts. This Court corrected the misconception, allowing the revision and directing a 50% deposit as per standard practice for the onshore services award. The revision petition was

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to deposit 50% of the awarded amount related to onshore services within six weeks.

Tecnimont India Private Limited. Tecnimont House Vs Nagarjuna… — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON NO.4640 OF 2018

¶3

ORDER : (per SK,J)

¶4

The first respondent in C.O.P.No.14 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judge, Commercial Court-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is the petitioner in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The said C.O.P was filed by the first respondent herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the arbitral Award dated 21.01.2017. Therein, the first respondent also filed I.A.No.50 of 2018 seeking stay of enforcement of the said Award. By the order under revision, the Court below granted stay of enforcement of the Award subject to the condition that the petitioner in the C.O.P. deposited 15% of the awarded amount within three months. Aggrieved by the quantum of deposit, the first respondent in the C.O.P. is before this Court.

¶5

Heard Sri Omer Farooq, learned counsel representing Sri Avinash Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M.Avinash, learned counsel representing Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶6

Perusal of the order under revision reflects that the Court below proceeded on the ground that a common Award was passed by the arbitral Tribunal and on this basis, it opined that imposing the condition to deposit 15% of the awarded amount would suffice.

¶7

Sri Omer Farooq, learned counsel, would however point out that the Court below was not correct in its understanding that the Award was a common Award giving rise to a single set aside petition. He would state that there were two separate contracts. One was with the first respondent

¶8

¶9

in relation to onshore services and the other related to offshore which was with Tecnimont SPA, an Italian company of which the first respondent is an Indian subsidiary. He would further state that two separate decrees were passed in relation to these contracts and therefore, the Court below ought not to have treated the Award in question as a common Award.

¶10

Sri M.Avinash, learned counsel, does not dispute the fact that the usual order passed in matters of this nature is that 50% of the awarded amount should be deposited. Learned counsel also concedes that there are no mitigating or special circumstances warranting deviation from this usual order in the case on hand.

¶11

As we find that the Court below seems to have decided on the quantum under the misconception that the Award was a common Award and that it was dealing with both contracts, there was no real justification in reducing the amount to be deposited from the usual 50% to a mere 15%.

¶12

The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed directing the first respondent herein to deposit, in all, 50% of the awarded amount in terms of the arbitral Award dated 21.10.2017, in so far as it related to onshore services, to the credit of C.O.P.No.14 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judge, Commercial Court-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pending its disposal. This amount shall be deposited within six weeks from today.

¶13

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶14

_______________ SANJAY KUMAR,J

¶15

Date:01.11.2018

¶16

_____________ M.GANGA RAO,J

¶17

¶18

Tecnimont India Private Limited. Tecnimont House v. Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tecnimont India Private Limited. Tecnimont House v. Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited

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

A. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Sri Yogitha Rana

K Radha Krishna Vs Dr. J. Yasmin (Incharge)

Dr.M.Rajasekhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Mrudula Vs The Engineet-in-chief

K. Haranadh Vs The Inspector General

R.V. Arun Kumar, Vs Union of India