The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition relying on a 2018 Supreme Court judgment in Board of Control for Cricket in India vs Kochi Cricket Private Limited & Others. This judgment stated that the amended Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, only applies to court proceedings that began on or after the Amendment Act’s start date.
A Single Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal passed this order while hearing a petition filed by the UP Jal Nigam (Urban) and Another.
The petition has been filed against the order dated 21.09.2024 passed by the Commercial Court, Jhansi.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent was awarded a contract, which could not be completed within the stipulated period as provided in the agreement/mutual consent. As such, a dispute arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the Arbitrator.
He further submitted that on 03.03.2010, an award was passed against the petitioners awarding Rs 92,04,289 with 8% interest. Against the award dated 03.03.2010, the petitioners filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, which was rejected by the order dated 03.02.2021 by the Commercial Court, Jhansi on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the award.
He also submitted that against the award dated 03.03.2010 and the order dated 03.02.2021, the petitioners preferred First Appeal From Order before the Court, which is still pending.
He said that in the meantime, the name of the respondent-company was changed as SPML Infra Limited.
He further said that in the meantime, Execution Case was filed by the respondent decree holder before the Commercial Court, Jhansi under section 36 of the Act, which was dismissed vide order dated 02.01.2023.
He also said that after more than 9 months, an application was filed by the respondent on 19.10.2023 before the Commercial Court, Jhansi for recalling the order dated 02.01.2023, which was dismissed by the order dated 16.03.2024.
Counsel for the petitioners stated that thereafter, second execution case under section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act was filed by the respondent, being Arbitration Execution Case, before the Commercial Court, Jhansi, in which the petitioners filed preliminary objection stating that the execution case was time-barred, but by the order dated 21.09.2024, the preliminary objection filed by the petitioners has been rejected.
Counsel for the petitioners further stated that the second execution case is not maintainable as the same is barred by time.
He also stated that the award was passed on 03.03.2010; whereas, the execution case was filed on 17.05.2024 after a lapse of more than 12 years, which is not permissible under the Act and thus, the same is liable to be set aside, but the court below, without considering the same in a proper prospect, has passed the impugned order.
Per contra, counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submitted that the application was filed within time as prescribed under the Act. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs Kochi Cricket Private Limited & Others [(2018) 6 SCC 287] and contends that the petition is liable to be dismissed as the second execution case is within limitation.
“In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, as also the law laid down by the Apex Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India (supra), no interference is called for in the impugned order,” the Court observed while dismissing the petition.