Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd v. M/s. Avon Meters (P) Ltd
Case at a glance
- Bench
- L N MITTAL
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 s. 34
Judgment
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. * * * * PRESENT: Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. L.N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) * * * * Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated
14.02.2012 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula. Dispute between the parties was referred to Arbitrator who gave award dated 15.10.2003. Petitioner herein filed objections against the said award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the Act). The said objections were dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 09.12.2008. Petitioner has challenged the said judgment by filing FAO No.3727 of 2009 in this Court and the same is now pending for
02.05.2012. Respondent filed execution petition for execution of Arbitrator's award dated 15.10.2003. In the execution petition, learned executing Court CR No.2095 of 2012 -2- vide impugned order Annexure P-1 has ordered attachment of property of the petitioner herein. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner contended that FAO No.3727 of 2009 is pending in this Court for 02.05.2012 and till decision of the said FAO, execution of Arbitrator's award may be stayed. The contention cannot be accepted. Objections of the petitioner filed under Section 34 of the Act against the award of Arbitrator were dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 09.12.2008 i.e. more than three years ago. During this long period, the petitioner has not been able to obtain any interim stay against execution of the Arbitrator's award in pending FAO No.3727 of 2009. Petitioner cannot be granted the same relief in this revision petition which the petitioner has failed to obtain in the aforesaid pending first appeal. Executing Court has rightly proceeded with the execution proceedings and ordered attachment of the property of the petitioner since there is no interim stay against execution of the Arbitrator's award. There is no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the executing Court. The revision petition is completely meritless and frivolous and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
03.04.2012 'raj' (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.