M/s Panasonic Life Solutions India Private Limited v. M/s Genesis Engineering Company, through its Partner and another M/s Genesis Engineering Company, through
Case Details
2025 (O&M) CR-1395-2025 (O&M) Sr. No.105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CR CR-1395-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.03.2025 Date of Decision : M/s Panasonic Life Solutions India Private Limited …Petitioner M/s Panasonic Life Solutions India Private Limited M/s Panasonic Life Solutions India Private Limited Versus M/s Genesis Engineering Company, through its Partner and another M/s Genesis Engineering Company, through its Partner and another M/s Genesis Engineering Company, through its Partner and another …Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Rajinder Kumar, Advocate and Present : Mr. Rajinder Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Rajinder Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Aryan Chitra, Advocate, Mr. Aryan for the petitioner. for the petitioner. *** LAPITA BANERJI, J. (Oral) LAPITA BANERJI Under challenge in the present petition under Article 227 of the Under challenge in the present petition under Article 227 Under challenge in the present petition under Article 227 the impugned orders dated December 11, 2024 Constitution of India are the impugned orders dated December 11, 2024 Constitution of India are 2) and February 3, 2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned 2) and February 3, 2025 (Annexure P (Annexure P-2) and February 3, 2025 (Annexure P Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar. Vide the Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar the impugned orders, the learned Additional District istrict Judge held that mere pendency of held that mere pendency of an application for correction under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 correction under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act correction under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to ‘the 1996 Act’) would not be a bar to the continuation (hereinafter referred to ‘the 1996 Act’) would not be a bar to the continuation (hereinafter referred to ‘the 1996 Act’) would not be a bar to the continuation of the execution proceedings. of the execution proceedings. 2. The objection petition moved by the petitioner The objection petition by the petitioner-judgment debtor anager concerned of the Standard Chartered Bank was was dismissed. The Manager concerned of the Standard Chartered Bank was was dismissed. directed to remit the decretal amount to the Executing Court. directed to remit the amount to the Executing Court. The objection of the petitioner- judgment debtor that due to the pendency of the application -judgment debtor that due to the pendency of the applica under Section 33 of the 1996 Act, before the MSME Council, the under Section 33 of the 1996 Act before the MSME Council, the execution proceedings should be stayed, was rejected. proceedings should 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since an application for correction and interpretation of the award was that since an application for correction and interpretation of the that since an application for correction and interpretation of the VANDANA 2025.03.11 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 5 2025 (O&M) CR-1395-2025 (O&M) pending before the MSME Council since May 26, 2024, therefore no pending before the MSME Council since May 2 pending before the MSME Council since May 2 application for setting aside could be filed by the judgment application for setting as ide could be filed by the judgment-award debtor . He refers to Section 34 (3) of the 1996 under Section 34 (3) of the 1996 Act. He refers to Section 34 (3) of the 1996 under Section 34 (3) of the imitation would run once the application under Act to submit that time for limitation would run once the application under Act to submit that time for l Section 33 was disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal. He relies on the Section 33 was disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal. He relies on the Section 33 was disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal. He relies on the in Special Leave Petition No(s). 20195/2017 judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No(s). 20195/2017 judgment of the Supreme Court dated July 10, 2017 “ ed July 10, 2017 “M/s Ved Parkash Mithal and Sons Vs. Union of Ved Parkash Mithal and Sons Vs. Union of India” to submit that the time would start to run under Section 34 (3) from the date to submit that the time would start to run under Section 34 (3) from the date to submit that the time would start to run under Section 34 (3) from the date on which the request under Section 33 was on which the request under Section 33 ‘disposed of’ by the Arbitral Tribunal. 4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and This Court has heard the learned counsel for the This Court has heard the learned counsel for the perused the material on record. perused the material 5. to refer to Section 33 of the 1996 Act. Relevant It is necessary to refer to Section 33 of the 1996 Act. Relevant It is extract is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:- extract is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference: extract is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference: 33. Correction and interpretation of award; additional award. “33. Correction and interpretation of award; additional award. 33. Correction and interpretation of award; additional award.
Legal Reasoning
(1) Within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral Within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral (1) award, unless another period of time has been agreed upon by award, unless another period of time has been agreed upon by award, unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties the parties (a) a party, with notice to the other party, may a party, with notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to correct any computation errors, request the arbitral tribunal to correct any computation errors, any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of a any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of a any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of a similar nature occurring in the award; similar nature occurring in the award; similar nature occurring in the award; if so agreed by the parties, a party, with if so agreed by the parties, a party, with (b) notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award. give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award. give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award. If the arbitral tribunal considers the request made If the arbitral tribunal considers the request made (2) (2) under sub fied, it shall make the correction under sub-section (1) to be justified, it shall make the correction or give the interpretation within thirty days from the receipt of or give the interpretation within thirty days from the receipt of or give the interpretation within thirty days from the receipt of the request and the interpretation shall form part of the arbitral the request and the interpretation shall form part of the arbitral the request and the interpretation shall form part of the arbitral award. award. The arbitral tribunal may correct any error of the The arbitral tribunal ma (3) (3) type referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), on its own type referred to in clause (a) of sub type referred to in clause (a) of sub initiative, within thirty days from the date of the arbitral initiative, within thirty days from the date of the arbitral initiative, within thirty days from the date of the arbitral award.” award.” XXX XXX XXX XXX 6. Section 34 (3) of the 1996 Act. It is also pertinent to refer to Section 34 (3) of the 1996 Act It is also pertinent to refer to Relevant extract is reproduced hereinafter:- Relevant extract is reproduced hereinafter: VANDANA 2025.03.11 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 5 2025 (O&M) CR-1395-2025 (O&M) “Section 34(3) in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 “Section 34(3) in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 “Section 34(3) in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Decision
(3) An application for setting aside may not be made (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had r eceived the arbitral award or, if a making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause fro m making the application within was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application the said period of three months it may entertain the application the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.” within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.” within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.” 7. From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is amply From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is amply From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is amply Arbitral Tribunal considered the request made under clear that in the event the Arbitral Tribunal considered the request made under clear that in the event the n was mandatorily required to be Section 33 (1) to be justified, the correction was mandatorily required to be Section 33 (1) to be justified in 30 days from the date of receipt of such request. This Court has made within 30 days from the date of receipt of such request. This Court has in 30 days from the date of receipt of such request. This Court has is mandatory in nature to provide a no doubt in its mind that the word “shall” is mandatory in nature to provide a no doubt in its mind that the word quick and efficacious remedy by alternate dispute resolution process. quick and efficacious remedy by alternate dispute resolution process. quick and efficacious remedy by alternate dispute resolution process. 8. , the request for correction was made in May 2024 Admittedly, the request for correction was made in May 2024 Admitte and the impugned orders were passed in December and the impugned orders passed in December, 2024 and February, 2025. Therefore, no doubt that a period of one month had passed from the date of no doubt that a period of one month had passed from the date of making of such request under Section 33. Section 34 (3) permits an making of such request under Section 33. Section 34 (3) making of such request under Section 33. Section 34 (3) application to be made within 3 months from the date when the request under application to be made within 3 months from the date when the request under application to be made within 3 months from the date when the request under Section 33 has been disposed of but such period cannot be permitted to be Section 33 has been disposed of but such period c Section 33 has been disposed of but such period c indefinitely extended beyond the period stipulated for disposal of such request indefinitely extended beyond the period stipulated for disposal of such request indefinitely extended beyond the period stipulated for disposal of such request under Section 33(2) of the 1996 Act. under Section 33(2) of the 1996 Act. 9. If this Court accepts the submissions made by the learned counsel If this Court accepts the submissions made by the learned counsel If this Court accepts the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner then the same would result in defeating for the petitioner then the same would resul t in defeating the very object/ Scheme of the eme of the 1996 Act, which is speedy resolution resolution of disputes by way of . A petition for correction under Section consensual method provided in the Act. A petition for correction under Section consensual method 33 if kept pending for years would then give the judgment-award debtor a 33 if kept pending for years would then give the judgment 33 if kept pending for years would then give the judgment shield of having the period of limitation extended indefinitely under Section 34 shield of having the period of limitation extended shield of having the period of limitation extended of the 1996 Act defeating the very purpose of the Act. All unscrupulous litigants of the 1996 Act defeating the very purpose of the Act. All unscrupulous of the 1996 Act defeating the very purpose of the Act. All unscrupulous VANDANA 2025.03.11 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 5 2025 (O&M) CR-1395-2025 (O&M) would first file an application under Section 33 and obtain a stay of the would first file an application under Section 33 and obtain a stay of the would first file an application under Section 33 and obtain a stay of the ngs citing the pendency of the Section 33 application. execution proceedings citing the pendency of the Section 33 application. execution proceedi 10. The case of Ved Parkash Mith The case of Ved Parkash Mithal (supra) does not aid the petitioner in any manner. In the said case the a petitioner in an y manner. In the said case the arbitral award was delivered on October 30, 2015 and received by the respondents October 30, 2015 and received by the respondents-judgment debtor on November 7, 2015. A request under Section 33 was made within 30 days on November 7, 2015. A request under Section 33 was made within 30 days on November 7, 2015. A request under Section 33 was made within 30 days on November 16, 2015. The same was decided within November 16, 2015. The was decided within a period of 30 days on December 14, 2015. December 14, 2015. 11. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Sup In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Sup view taken by the High Court was not the one reflecting the view taken by the High Court was not the one reflecting the correct position of law since the petition for correction as Section 34 (3) specifically stipulated the petition for correction as Section 34 (3) specifically stipulated that limitation would start running from the date on which a request under that limitation would start running from the date on which a request un that limitation would start running from the date on which a request un Section 33 had been ‘disposed of’ by the Arbitral Tribunal. It was a case Section 33 had been ‘disposed of’ by the Arbitral Tribunal Section 33 had been ‘disposed of’ by the Arbitral Tribunal where Section 33 application was disposed of within one month of receipt of where Section 33 application was disposed of within one month of receipt of where Section 33 application was disposed of within one month of receipt of such request. 12. Every act or document has to be read as a whole to give a Every act or document has to be read as a whole Every act or document has to be read as a whole harmonious construction construction. Section 34(3) cannot be read in isolation Section 34(3) cannot be read in isolation without A beneficial reference may be referring to Section 33(2) of the 1996, Act. A beneficial reference may be referring to S made to the Apex Court judgments in “East India Hotels Ltd. made to the Apex Court jud East India Hotels Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and another” reported in (2 Vs. Union of India and another (2001)1 SCC 284. 13. This Court finds no merit in the present civil revision. The This Court finds no merit in the present civil revision. This Court finds no merit in the present civil revision. xecuting Court has not committed any error. A reference is made to the xecuting Court has not committed any error. Executing Court has not committed any error. recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Ap recent judgment of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3640 of 2025 dated March 6, 2025 through LRS and others Vs. V. March 6, 2025 in “Periyammal (dead) through LRS and others Vs. V. Rajamani and another Etc” wherein the High Court Rajamani and another Etc wherein the High Courts across the country are to call for necessary information from their respective district judiciary with to call for necessary information from their respective district judiciary with to call for necessary information from their respective district judiciary with VANDANA 2025.03.11 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 5 2025 (O&M) CR-1395-2025 (O&M) regard to pendency of execution petitions. Relevant extract is regard to pendency of execution . Relevant extract is reproduced hereinafter:- “75. “75. In view of the aforesaid, we direct all the High In view of the aforesaid, we direct all the High Courts across the country to call for the necessary information Courts across the country to call for the necessary information Courts across the country to call for the necessary information from their respective district judiciary as regards pendency of from their respective district judiciary as regards pendency of from their respective district judiciary as regards pendency of the execution petitions. Once the data is collected by each of the execution petitions. Once the data is colle the execution petitions. Once the data is colle the High Courts, the High Courts shall thereafter proceed to the High Courts, the High Courts shall thereafter proceed to the High Courts, the High Courts shall thereafter proceed to issue an administrative order or circular, directing their issue an administrative order or circular, directing their issue an administrative order or circular, directing their respective district judiciary to ensure that the execution respective district judiciary to ensure that the execution respective district judiciary to ensure that the execution petitions pending in various courts shall be decided and petitions pending in various courts shall be decided and petitions pending in various courts shall be decided and posed of within a period of six months without fail otherwise disposed of within a period of six months without fail otherwise dis the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side. Once the entire data High Court on its administrative side. Once the entire data High Court on its administrative side. Once the entire data along with the figures of pendency and disposal thereafter, is along with the figures of pendency and disposal thereafter, is along with the figures of pendency and disposal thereafter, is all the High Courts, the same shall be forwarded collected by all the High Courts, the same shall be forwarded collected by to the Registry of this Court with individual reports. to the Registry of this Court with individual reports. to the Registry of this Court with individual reports. Therefore, the stay of proceedings was not warranted in any manner by the Therefore, the stay of proceedings was not warranted in any manner by the Therefore, the stay of proceedings was not warranted in any manner by the executing Court. executing Court. 14. 15. dismissed. Accordingly CR-1395-2025 is dismissed. Accordingly CR applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed of. Connected applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed of. Connected (LAPITA BANERJI) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE JUDGE March 07, 202 vandana , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : Whether reportable : Yes/No Yes/No VANDANA 2025.03.11 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 5