IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.3237 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision 29.10.2009
M/s Karanbir Rice Mills Ltd.
...... Petitioner
VERSUS
Punjab Agro Food Grains Limited and others
...... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.Parveen K.Kataria, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Ishtbir Singh Sidhu, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
*****
A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):
Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25.04.2009,
passed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the application
under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act for staying the proceedings.
The award in this case was passed on 16.04.2004 and during
the execution of the said award objection petition was filed on 19.03.2009.
After the reply was filed, the Court in the process of adjudicating the
objection petition, framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the Award dated 16.04.2004 is liable to be set
aside ? OPA
2. Whether the objection petition is within time ? OPA
3. Relief.
However, vide impugned order dated 25.04.2009, the
Additional District Judge, Amritsar, while treating the objection petition to
be barred by time, refused to stay the execution. The provision of law
relating to the enforcement of the award during the pendency of the
objection petition as contained in Section 36 of the Act is reproduced as
under:-
“36. Enforcement – Where the time for making an application
to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired, or
Civil Revision No.3237 of 2009 (O&M) -2-
such application having been made, it has been refused, the
award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908) in the same manner as if it were a decree of
the Court.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
enforcement of the award could be made only in two contingencies (i) either
the time for making the award under Section 12 (2)(4) has expired (s) or
such application having been made, has been refused.
In the instant case, Additional District Judge, Amritsar, without
adjudicating whether the time for setting aside the award had expired and
without refusing the application so made by the objector, ordered
enforcement of the award as such the same is not in accordance with the
provision of law as envisaged under Section 36 of the Act. The Court,
before allowing enforcement of the order, could have decided issue No.2
with regard to the limitation.
For the abovesaid reasons, this petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 25.04.2009, to the extent of refusing to stay the
execution, is set aside and the trial Court is directed to proceed in
accordance with law and pass the appropriate order with regard to
enforcement of the award. Parties are directed to appear before the
Appellate Court on the date fixed.
(A.N.Jindal)
Judge
29.10.2009
mamta-II