IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 21282 of 2007(H)
1. M.S.ANTONY, S/O. M.K.SEBASTIAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S. MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD.,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :11/07/2007
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
-----------------------------
WP(C)No. 21282 OF 2007 H
-----------------------------
Dated this the 11th July, 2007.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the
District Court, Ernakulam to keep in abeyance all further
proceedings in E.P.13/04 in A.P.74/99 for a period of three
months in view of the pendency of A.S.12/06 before the
District Court, Uduppi.
2. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner.
3. It is submitted that against the ex parte award
passed the present writ petitioner has filed an arbitration
suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act
1996 to set aside the award with a petition to condone the
delay in filing the same and it is pending before the
District Court Uduppi. Section 36 of the Arbitration Act
lays down the principle for enforcement of the award. As
per the said Section where the time for making an
application to set aside the arbitral award under Section
34 has expired or such application having been made, it has
been refused, the award shall be enforced under the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 in the same manner as if it were a
decree of the court. Section 34 of the Arbitration act
enables the party to file an application for setting aside
the award on the grounds mentioned therein and the said
WPC 21282/07 2
Section also empowers the court to condone the delay, if
any, in filing the application to set aside the award. The
present writ petitioner has resorted to a remedy under
Section 34 and so it is desirable that some time is given
for pursuing his remedies under the said proceedings. He
could not obtain an interim order because of the pendency
of the delay condonation application. In the decision
reported in Khaleel Ahmed Dakhani v. Hatti Gold Mines
Co.Ltd. (AIR 2006 S.C.1926) the Apex Court has also taken a
view that when an application for setting aside the
arbitral award is pending it is not correct to enforce the
award. So, taking into consideration these broad
principles, I am inclined to grant a stay for a period of
two months from today so as to enable the writ petitioner
to move the court at Uduppi for speedy disposal of the
delay condonation application and for obtaining an interim
order, if law permits. Writ petition is disposed of
accordingly.
M.N.KRISHNAN
Judge
jj