Case BriefsHigh Courts

Orissa High Court: The Bench of A.K. Rath, J. dismissed the petition filed against the order which rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order 21 Rule 29 CPC to stay the further proceeding in an execution case till the disposal of another civil suit. 

The facts of the case were that the plaintiffs had instituted a civil suit before the Civil Judge for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property. Petitioner was defendant No. 1 in the suit. The suit was decreed ex parte against defendant No. 1 to 7 and 9 to 12. Thereafter, they levied an Execution Case. In the meanwhile, petitioner, as plaintiff instituted another civil suit in the same court for a declaration of title, a declaration that judgment and decree passed, was null and void, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. He filed an application under Order 21 Rule 29 CPC to stay Execution Case of 2006 till the disposal of the suit. The executing Court dismissed the same.  Mr Subrat Panda, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Decree Holder by playing fraud on the Court obtained the decree. Thus the decree was not executable. 

The Court held that merely because another suit was filed, the same was not per se a ground to stay the execution case. The Decree Holder should not be deprived of the fruits of litigation. Order 6 Rule 4 CPC provides that in all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary, such particulars shall be stated in the pleading. The petition under Order 21 Rule 29 CPC cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner unless sufficient cause is shown to stay the execution case. [Dhoba Moharana v. Lili Moharana, 2019 SCC OnLine Ori 164, Ordered on 10-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Petitioner filed before the bench of Gurvinder Singh Gill, J., an application for grant of anticipatory bail where FIR was registered under Sections 307, 326, 324, 325, 148 and 149 of Penal Code.

The FIR was filed alleging petitioner that he inflicted a blow with kirch in the stomach of the complainant and his nephew was also injured in the process. Petitioner submitted that genesis of occurrence was suppressed as he himself had received 7 injuries. Further, the incident occurred in a shop possessed by the petitioner which shows that complainant was the aggressor. Whereas the respondent submitted that since petitioner was specifically mentioned in the FIR and allegations against him were duly established in the Medico-Legal Report thus no case for anticipatory bail was made out.

High Court perused a judgment passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Amritsar where an uncle of the complainant, had filed a civil suit against a petitioner seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from causing any damage to the shops. The aforementioned suit was dismissed where the petitioner had failed to establish entitlement towards a suit property. As stated by petitioner the appeal against the above was dismissed. However, the Court was of the view that since petitioner had 7 injuries whose aggressor was not certain anticipatory bail must be granted. [Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 151, dated 26-02-2019]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Considering the sad state of affairs of long drawn expensive and cumbersome trials to resolve disputes between two Government owned corporations and the fact that one of the parties in the case at hand had with considerable tenacity opposed the move aimed at a quick and effective resolution of the conflict and resultant quietus to the controversy by a reference of the disputes to arbitration in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the bench of T.S. Thakur, CJ and R. Banumathi, J. referred the matter for adjudication to Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Former Chief Justice of Supreme Court, who is hereby appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon all claims and counter claims which the parties may choose to file before him.

In the present case, the parties had entered into a contract for construction of a Coal Handling Plant and a Clause in the Contract provided for adjudication of disputes between the parties by way of arbitration. Disputes between the parties were referred for resolution in terms of the “permanent in-house administrative machinery” set up by the Government. Both the parties, upon being dissatisfied with the awards, challenged the award in appeals filed before the Law Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice in terms of the in-house mechanism provided by the Government. The appellant then filed a civil suit before the High Court of Delhi alleging that the Arbitral award passed by the appellate authority was according to the appellant illegal and vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record, hence, liable to be set aside.

Discussing the question of remanding the case to the Civil Court, the Court noticed that an arbitral award under the Permanent Machinery of Arbitration may give quietus to the controversy if the same is accepted by the parties to the dispute. In cases, however, a party does not accept the award, as is the position in the case at hand, the arbitral award may not put an end to the controversy. Such an award being outside the framework of the law governing arbitration will not be legally enforceable in a court of law. Just because a Government owned company has resorted to the permanent procedure or taken part in the proceedings there can be no estoppel against its seeking redress in accordance with law. Making reference to a sole arbitrator for adjudication of all outstanding disputes between the two corporations, the Court held that the alternative to such arbitration is a long drawn expensive and cumbersome trial of the suit filed by the appellant before a civil court and the difficulties that beset the execution of an award made under a non-statutory administrative mechanism and that both these courses are unattractive with no prospects of an early fruition. [NORTHERN COALFIELD LTD v. HEAVY ENGINEERING CORP. LTD, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 697, decided on 13.07.2016]