01.07.2025 Apollo Gre Green Energy Limited ioner v. Versu Man Struct Structurals Private Limited ndent
Case Details
CR No.308 o.3081 of 2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ IN CHANDIGAR PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IGARH &M) CR No.3081 of 2025 (O&M) Pronounced on: 01.07.2025 Apollo Gre Green Energy Limited ioner …Petitioner Versus Versu Man Struct Structurals Private Limited ndent …Respondent CORAM: AM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TR TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Ad Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Jerry, Advocate, and Mr. Vardaan Seth, Advocate, and Advocate, with for the petitioner. Mr. Pancham Surana, Advocat Mr. Himanshu Setia, Advocate dvocate, and vocate, for the respondent. TRIBHUV UVAN DAHIYA, J. This petition under Article 227 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed filed for setting aside order dated 02 02.05.2025, Annexure P-16, passe passed by Additio dditional District Judge-cum-Presidin residing Judge, Exclusive Commerci mercial Court at Gurugram, in CIS No.ARB-02 02-2024, whereby he has ordere ordered release of of the decretal amount ₹19,33,71,08 ,71,085 to the respondent on furnishin rnishing Bank guara guarantee of the equivalent amount, ount, during pendency of the petitio petition under Secti Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for shor short, ‘the 1996 Act’) against the award dated 10. 10.10.2023, Annexure P-7. MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.308 o.3081 of 2025 (O&M) 2 2. Facts relevant to decide the the matter are, disputes between the parties wer were referred to arbitration, which hich led to passing of the award date dated 10.10.2023 .2023, directing the petitioner to pa pay a sum of ₹14,44,70,000 alon along with simple simple interest at the rate of twelve pe per cent per annum from the date date of cause of of action, along with ₹13,09,10 ,09,105 as arbitration costs, to the respondents ndents. The award was challenged nged before the Commercial Court ourt at Gurugram gram by filing objection petition un under Section 34 of the 1996 A Act which is pe pending adjudication. 2.1. The respondent/decree holder older filed an execution petition in the Delhi High
Legal Reasoning
High Court, OMP (ENF) (Comm.) m.) 18 of 2024 titled Man Structura turals Pvt. Limite imited v. Apollo International Limit imited (now known as Apollo Gree Green Energy Lim Limited) for enforcement of the aw award. Vide order dated 23.01.202 1.2024, the Executi xecuting Court passed an interim orde order for maintaining status quo wi with regard to to title of immovable properties erties belonging to the petitioner as mentioned ioned in the list of assets furnished by by the respondent. 2.2. Later, the Commercial C Court decided the petitioner itioner’s application cation for stay on enforcement of the the arbitral award filed under Sectio Section 36(3) of th the 1996 Act, vide order dated 06 06.09.2024, Annexure P-10. It wa was partially al allowed by requesting the Delhi Delhi High Court/Executing Court th that the decretal ecretal amount to be deposited by the the petitioner may not be disbursed ursed to the respond espondent/decree holder. The order rea reads thus: 11. Admittedly, an executio ecution petition has already been file filed by the claimant/respondent bef before the Hon'ble Delhi High Cou Court i.e. case titled as Man Struc Structurals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Apol Apollo International Limited (Now Now Apollo Green Energy Limited imited) OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 18/20 18/2024 in which a direction has bee been MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.308 o.3081 of 2025 (O&M) 3 issued by the Hon'ble Delh Delhi High Court vide order date dated 15.07.2024 directing the jud judgment debtor i.e. the prese present petitioner to deposit the dec decretal amount with the learne learned Registrar General of the Hon'b Hon'ble High Court of Delhi within within 8 weeks from the date of order order passed by Hon'ble High Court ourt of Delhi. 12. In the light of discus discussion made above and witho without observing anything on the merits of the case lest it ma may prejudice the parties while deciding the main petition und under Section 34 of the Act, the application moved by the applicant/petitioner is partly tly allowed. On depositing of the decretal amount by the appl applicant/petitioner with the learne learned Registrar General of Hon'ble on'ble High Court of Delhi, Hon'b Hon'ble executing court is requested uested not to disburse the aforesa foresaid amount to the respondent/clai nt/claimant/DH till the decision of the main petition under Section ction 34 of the Act. The applicatio lication
Decision
stands disposed of in the afores aforesaid terms. However, ever, request of the Commercial Cour Court not to disburse the amount wa was rejected by by the Executing Court, vide orde order dated 23.09.2024 (produced uced by learned co counsel for the respondent and and retained on the case file as Annexure xure ‘A’). 2.3. The order, dated 06.09.2024 .2024, granting conditional stay wa was challenged enged by the petitioner before this C Court by filing a revision petitio petition, CR No.599 5996 of 2024, which was dismissed missed vide judgment dated 20.11.202 1.2024, Annexure xure P-11. This Court was of the view view that the direction to deposit the decretal am amount with the Executing Court/D ourt/Delhi High Court with the reque request not to disb disburse it till disposal of the objec objection petition under Section 34 34 of the 1996 Ac Act, safeguarded the petitioner’s ner’s interests. MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.308 o.3081 of 2025 (O&M) 4 2.4. The matter was thereafter tak taken to the Supreme Court as the petitioner ioner challenged the order, dated 20.1 20.11.2024, passed by this Court by filing SLP SLP (C) no.29157 of 2024, which hich was disposed of vide order date dated 13.12.2024 .2024, Annexure P-12, with the follow following observations: Heard the learned Senior cou counsel appearing for the petitione titioner. Though no case is made out out for interference with the ord order granting conditional stay, on on the prayer made by the learne learned senior counsel appearing for for the petitioner, we extend the tim time to deposit the amount in term 6th September, 2024 passed terms of paragraph 12 of order date dated assed by the Commercial Court by by a period of four months from from today. If the amount is not deposited within four months onths from today with the Commerci mercial Court, the stay shall stand vaca vacated without any further referenc eference to the Court. We make it clear that as as soon as the amount is deposite posited, the same shall be invested in in the interest bearing Fixed Depos Deposit in any Nationalised Bank. Th The Court in which petition und under Section 34 of Arbitration and and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for shor short, 'the Act'), shall not permit ermit withdrawal or disbursement of amount unless a specific appli application for withdrawal is made ade by the respondent and unless the petitioner is heard on the application. In this man manner, under orders of the Supre Supreme Court the time to deposit the decretal am amount was extended up to four months from the date of the orde order, and the Commercial Court hearing the the petition under Section 34 wa was directed no not to permit withdrawal or disb disbursement of the decretal amou amount unless a spe specific application for withdrawal drawal was made by the respondent an and the petition etitioner was heard thereupon. 2.5. The proceedings of the objecti objection petition filed under Section ction 34 MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. of the 199 1996 Act remained pending with with the Commercial Court, and the CR No.308 o.3081 of 2025 (O&M) 5 respondent/ ndent/decree holder filed an applica pplication under Section 151 CPC for release of of the decretal amount deposited by by the petitioner, dated 22.02.202 2.2025, Annexure xure P-14. It was responded to by the petitioner by filing reply date dated 11.04.2025 .2025, Annexure P-15. Considering ering the same, the Commercial Cou Court passed the the impugned order dated 02.05.202 05.2025, directing as under: 13. A division bench of Ho Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana Hig High Court vide order dated 22.10. CARB- 22.10.2024 passed in CM-60-FCARB 2024 in FAO-CARB-16-2024 2024, titled as M/s Spaze Towers Pv Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ishan Singh deal dealt with a similar question. In the case before Hon'ble High Cou Court also, an application was move moved by the successful claimant see seeking permission to withdraw the amount deposited by the no non-applicant/appellant in view view of award passed against it. After After hearing both the sides, Hon'b Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Co Court allowed the said applicatio lication and ordered releasing of non- the sum deposited by the non applicant-appellant before Ho Hon'ble High Court on furnishing ishing a bank guarantee of an equival quivalent amount to the satisfaction ction of this court as the amount was was deposited before this court by the non-applicant-appellant durin during the pendency of the petitio petition under Section 34 of the Act Act whose release was sought by the applicant-respondent before th the Hon'ble High Court after givin giving notice to the non-applicant-app appellant as it would serve the end ends of justice. A similar view was was also taken by a division bench ench of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana aryana High Court vide order date dated 06.11.2024 passed in CM- -78-FCARB-2024 in/and CM- -40- FCARB-2024 in/and FAO FAO-CARB-50-2023 and connecte nnected matter titled as M/s Countryw untrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versu Versus Prof. Tej Ram Yadav. 14. In the present case also, also, it is a similar situation as petitio petition under Section 34 of the Act is pending adjudication before th this MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. court and the awarded amoun amount with interest is now deposite eposited with this court by the non-app applicant/petitioner or the same has CR No.308 o.3081 of 2025 (O&M) 6 been received by way of tran transfer from the learned Registr egistrar General Hon'ble High Court ourt of Delhi at New Delhi and fro from attached bank accounts of the the non-applicant/petitioner. In the application moved by the appli applicant/respondent, it has prayed for releasing an amount of Rs.19, Rs.19,33,71,085/-. This calculation has not been disputed by the non non-applicant/petitioner by filing rep reply or otherwise. In fact learned counsel for DH has shown a cop copy of order dated 29.04.2025 pa passed in OMP (ENF.) (COMM OMM.) 18/2024, EX.APPL.(OS) 1957/2024, ΕΧ.APPL.(OS PL.(OS) 1960/2024, EX.APPL.(OS) 20/2025, titled as Man Structur tructural Pvt. Ltd. Versus Apollo Inte International Limited (Now Apol Apollo Green Energy Limited) in in which learned counsel for the judgment debtor appearing bef before Hon'ble Delhi High Court has not disputed the sum of Rs.19 Rs.19,33,71,805/- being due as per the award passed against it and ha has prayed for de-attachment of the accounts of the judgment nt debtor beyond the sum of Rs.19,33,71,805/-. 15. In the light of discussi iscussion made above, the applicatio lication moved by the applicant/respo /respondent is disposed of by orderin ordering that an amount of Rs.19,33,71, ,33,71,085/- deposited with this court court be released in favour of the appli applicant/respondent on its furnishin rnishing bank guarantee of an equival quivalent amount to the satisfaction ction of this court which shall remain emain valid till decision of the petitio petition under Section 34 of the Act. The applicant/respondent shall als also tender an undertaking in the the form of an affidavit that the applicant/respondent will get get the validity of the bank guarante uarantee furnished before its date of ex expiry. The application is dispose isposed of in the aforesaid terms. 3. In this factual background, M Mr. Chopra, learned senior couns nsel for the peti petitioner contends that the impugn pugned order is per se violative of the directions tions issued by the Supreme Cou Court, as in terms therewith the Commercia mercial Court was required to offer offer due opportunity of hearing to the MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.308 o.3081 of 2025 (O&M) 7 petitioner ioner before passing the order for release of decretal amount to the respondent. ndent. This would mean considering ering and deciding the objections raise raised by the petit petitioner in his reply to the respon espondent’s application seeking releas release of the amo amount. This has not been done, done, as the impugned order does not consider any of the objections raised by the petitioner, either in the application cation or during hearing of the mat matter. This shows the order is is in violation of the Principles of Natural Just Justice as well, and needs to be set aside. Even Even otherwise, the impugned order order does not record any reason as as to why the de decretal amount is required to be be released at this stage, when the objection petition under Section 34 of the the 1996 Act is ripe for argument uments. Instead of of ensuring conclusion of the pe pending proceedings, the decret decretal amount has has been ordered to be released which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. ioner. In case the objection petition tition is finally decided in petitioner itioner’s favour, it will have to run after the respond espondent to get the amount recovere covered, and will als also loose interest which is being being generated as the decretal amou amount has been ke kept in the form of FDRs. Lastly, astly, he contends that equities betwee between the parties arties have been balanced by directing recting deposit of entire decretal amou amount by the petit petitioner, and there is no justificati tification to release the same by passin passing the impugn pugned order. 4. Per contra, Mr. Surana, learne learned counsel for the respondent, has vehemently mently opposed the submissions m made by learned senior counse counsel. Firstly, he he has contended that it has not not been brought to the notice of the Court that that decretal amount was not willing willingly deposited. The petitioner trie tried its level bes best to evade depositing the same same which forced the Executing Cou Court to attach its Bank accounts, and the am amount from those accounts wa was MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.308 o.3081 of 2025 (O&M) 8 transferred ferred under Court orders. Secondly dly, much stress has been laid on the interim ord order, dated 23.09.2024, passed by by the Delhi High Court/Executin ecuting Court, whe whereby the Commercial Court’s request not to release the decret decretal amount dur during pendency of Section 34 pe petition stands rejected. This ord order was not ch challenged before the Supreme Co Court. Accordingly, there is no bar on releasin leasing the amount to respondent, nor can the same be objected to. Thirdly, it it has been contended that the award is in the form of a mone money decree whi which cannot be stayed. Simply mply moving of an application for its release is sufficient for the Court to pass an order; no other aspect needs needs to be looked oked into for the purpose as the resp respondent is entitled to the amou amount being decre decree holder. Fourthly, it has been been contended that impugned order order is interlocutor locutory in nature whereby release of the decretal amount has bee been conditioned itioned upon furnishing of adequate quate Bank guarantee of an equivale uivalent amount. As As per settled law, revision agai against an interlocutory order is not maintainab tainable. Besides, the discretion veste vested in the Court has been right rightly exercised; ised; there is no error apparent on rec record and, accordingly, interferenc rference by this Cou Court is not called for. 5. idered. considered. 6. Submissions made by learned arned counsel for the parties have bee been As per facts apparent on reco record, learned Arbitrator passed the award date dated 10.10.2023, in response whereto the petitioner filed an objection petition under Section 34 of the the 1996 Act before the Commerci mercial Court at Gu Gurugram, which is pending adjud adjudication. Execution proceedings dings of the award ward are also pending before the De Delhi High Court. The Commerci mercial Court, vide vide order dated 06.09.2024, grant granted conditional stay directing the MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.308 o.3081 of 2025 (O&M) 9 petitioner ioner to deposit the decretal amount ount with a request to the Executin ecuting Court not not to disburse the same during pend pendency of the petition. The reque request was declin declined vide order dated 23.09. 23.09.2024. In the meanwhile, the Commercia mercial Court’s order, dated 06.09 06.09.2024, was challenged by the petitioner ioner before this Court by filing revisio revision petition, CR No.5996 of 202 2024, which was was dismissed vide judgment dated dated 20.11.2024. This was questione estioned before the the Supreme Court, wherein the jud judgment was not interfered with with on merits, and and vide order dated 13.12.2024 .2024 it was directed that the decret decretal amount be be transferred to the Commercial rcial Court and deposited in an intere interest bearing fix fixed deposit in any Nationalised nalised Bank. And the Court shall not permit its its withdrawal or disbursement unl unless a specific application for the purpose wa was made by the respondent and the petitioner was afforded hearin hearing thereupon. upon. Also, the time to deposit decre decretal amount was extended by fou four months fro from the date of the Supreme Cou Court order. As submitted by learne learned senior coun counsel, the amount was, accordin ccordingly, deposited by the petition etitioner within tim time on 07.02.2025 in the accou accounts which were already und under attachment hment since 21.10.2024. Soon there thereafter, application for its releas release, dated 22.0 22.02.2025, was made by the respondent, and allowed by the Commercia mercial Court vide impugned order da dated 02.05.2025. 6.1. A perusal of the impugned ord order shows no ground for releasin eleasing the decreta ecretal amount has been recorded; rded; it only mentions the factum ctum of application cation having been preferred by the the respondent for the purpose. Non None of the obje objections taken by the petitioner against the release has been dea dealt with. Actua Actually, the need to release the amo amount is to be seen in the context ntext of the facts - - (i) the Commercial Court had itself granted conditional stay vid vide MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.308 o.3081 of 2025 (O&M) 10 order dated dated 06.09.2024, directing the petit petitioner to deposit decretal amou amount with the Ex Executing Court, and requested against its release during pendenc endency of the obje objection petition under Section 34 34 of the 1996 Act; (ii) the ord order stands affir affirmed by this Court vide order da dated 20.11.2024, as it balanced the equities; (iii) the Supreme Court has dec declined to entertain the challeng hallenge against thi this Court’s judgment. Besides, sides, there has been no change in circumstanc mstances since then. Only the objecti bjection petition has remained pendin pending for some more time. However, it is not not the case that the petitioner has delayed dec decision of the petition in any man manner. The direction by the Suprem upreme Court perm permitting release of the amount on only after hearing the petitioner, ioner, is not to be read as a mandate to release the the same. Apparently, it only mean means the release elease is permitted for justifiable groun grounds to be ascertained after hearin hearing the petition etitioner, or else the requirement to to afford a hearing would not hav have been incorp incorporated. This Court is at a loss to understand the reasons requirin equiring the release, elease, as none has been indicated even remotely by the Commerci mercial Court. The The respondent is also unable to cite any; Mr. Surana only says the award bein being a money decree, the amount ount cannot be withheld. But that wa was the situatio ituation at the time of granting condit conditional stay as well, and challeng hallenge against it already stands declined on meri merits. The amount is lying in fixe fixed deposits an and earning interest, to be given given to the party in whose favour the objection petition is finally decided. The im impugned order is, therefore, bere bereft of any justi justification, and contrary to the fact facts on record. 6.2. Also, reliance in the impugne pugned order, dated 02.05.2025, upo upon the orders rders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CM-60-FCARB-202 2024 in/and FAO FAO-CARB-16-2024 titled M/s Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. v. Isha Ishan MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.308 o.3081 of 2025 (O&M) 11 Singh, and and CM-78-FCARB-2024 in/and CM-40-FCARB-2024 in/an in/and in/an FAO-CARB CARB-50-2023 titled M/s Countrywi rywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Prof. Tej Ram Yadav adav, dated 22.10.2024 and 06.11.2 6.11.2024, respectively, is misplace splaced. Firstly, the these are interim orders not layin laying down any binding preceden ecedent. Secondly, , the same have been rendered on on different facts, during pendenc endency of appeals peals after dismissal of objection petit petitions under Section 34 of the 199 1996 Act against against the awards impugned therein. erein. Thirdly, in none of the cases ha had the Court Court initially granted stay/conditio nditional stay against release of the decretal am amount during pendency of the app appeal. 6.3. Still further, the contention ntion by Mr. Surana that rejection ction of Commercia mercial Court’s request by the Delh Delhi High Court, vide order date dated 23.09.2024 .2024, not to disburse the decretal am amount will itself afford a basis for its release, lease, is without substance. The order order no longer subsists after the fin final order passe passed in the matter by the Supreme reme Court dated 13.12.2024. Althoug lthough the order, order, dated 23.09.2024, had not specifically been challenged, nged, it undisputedl sputedly was placed on record before efore the Supreme Court. Accordingl rdingly, the Court was conscious of the fact and dec decided the matter after taking it in into account. Re Resultantly, the doctrine of merger merger will be constructively applicab plicable and the Hig High Court order will stand merge merged with the Supreme Court orde order, which is no not a mandate to release the decret ussed. decretal amount, as already discussed. 6.4. The interlocutory nature of the impugned order will also not restrain this this Court from exercising the juri jurisdiction to examine whether it it is reasonable, nable, based on sound legal principl rinciples, and justifiable in the light light of evidence on record. The law on the issue issue is well settled that, in the absenc absence of any statu statutory bar, a discretionary interlo interlocutory order can be set aside aside in MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.308 o.3081 of 2025 (O&M) 12 exercise of of appellate or supervisory jurisdic urisdiction if it is mala fide, arbitrary itrary or perverse. A reference in this regard can be be made to judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. and anot another v. Antox India P. Ltd., 199 1990 (Supp) SCC SCC 727, holding as under: 14. The appeals before the the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfe interfere with the exercise of discretio scretion of the court of first instance tance and substitute its own discretio scretion except where the discretion retion has been shown to have bee been exercised arbitrarily, or capric capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled ettled principles of law regulating gra grant or refusal of interlocutory utory injunctions. An appeal again against exercise of discretion is said to to be an appeal on principle. … As discuss iscussed herein before, the impugne pugned order suffers from perversit rversity, being unrea unreasonable and has been passed san sans any basis. 7. In view of the discussion abo above, the petition is allowed. T The impugned gned order, dated 02.05.2025, is set as aside, and the Commercial Court Court is directed to to expeditiously decide the objec objection petition under Section 34 34 of the 1996 Ac Act. .2025 01.07.2025 Maninder (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.