Municipal Corporation Meerut Thru. Municipal v. M/S Waste Management (Meerut ) Ltd

Petitioner :- Municipal Corporation Meerut Thru. Municipal Commissioner Meerut Respondent :- M/S A 2 Z Waste Management (Meerut ) Ltd. Thru. Representative Shri Abhay Garg And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Indu Prakash Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the Commercial Court No.2 in Arbitration Case No.133 of 2023, whereby, the request of the petitioner for deciding the issue of the award being obtained on the basis of corruption and malpractice as a preliminary issue was rejected and it was held that all the issues including the issue whether the award was obtained on the basis of corruption or fraud was directed to be decided along with main petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, which is said to be pending.

The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that specific application was moved that the award was obtained by playing fraud and on allegation of corruption with a request that the said be decided as a preliminary issue, the Commercial Court did not agree with the said submission and held that in view of the general direction given by the High Court in a judgment dated 09.05.2024 passed in Matter Under Article 227 No.2098 of 2024 (M/s A 2 Z Waste Management Limited vs Construction and Design Services, U.P. Jal Nigam, Noida and others), it was incumbent upon the Commercial Court to decide the matter expeditiously, as such, all the issues were directed to be decided when the matter is finally heard and disposed off.

The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the said manner of deciding is not proper in view of the law explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court that fraud vitiates everything.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that this Court had issued directions for expeditious disposal in the presence of both the parties. This Court had also considered the judgment in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath: (1994) 1 SCC 1, while giving the directions. The Commercial Court has kept all the issues open to be decided.

Considering the fact that this Court is exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I do not see any reason as to why the discretion of the Commercial Court to decide the matter in the manner thought appropriate needs any interference by this Court. The direction as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage.

However, it is directed that the Commercial Court shall endeavour to decide the case in terms of the directions given by this Court in the judgment dated 09.05.2024.

This order has been passed in the presence of Sri Suyash Gupta, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.1 as well as Sri Arpit Chaudhary appearing on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3. The Vakalatnama is taken on record. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 akverma ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench