Supreme Court of India
NHPC LIMITED versus M/S PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED on 30 November 2018
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1101
NHPC LIMITED
v.
M/S PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 11700 of 2018)
NOVEMBER 30, 2018
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: ss. 9 and 34 – Post-award application u/s. 9 - Application allowed and the appellantcalled upon to release the amount covered by the arbitral award –Challenge to, on the ground that the order of the High Court waspassed even though the period of limitation for challenging theaward u/s. 34 was still to expire – Appellant’s case that theapplication u/s.9, filed within the period of limitation prescribedfor challenging the award ought not to have been entertained –Issuance of notice in these proceedings and stay of the operationof the impugned order of the High Court till the next date of listing – During the course of the hearing, award of the arbitral tribunalset aside – Since the arbitral award has been set aside, the basis onwhich the impugned order was passed by the High Court ceases tosurvive, the order passed by the High Court is set aside.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11700of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2016 of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 4394 of 2016.
N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv., Ajit Pudussery, K. Vijayan, Ajeet SinghVerma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Mahesh Agarwal, E. C. Agrawala Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Leave granted.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The High Court by its impugned order dated 22 August 2016,allowed a post-award application under Section 9 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’). As a result, the appellant was calledupon to release the amount covered by the arbitral award along with
1101
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
Ainterest subject to the respondent furnishing a Bank Guarantee equal tothe awarded amount for a period of one year.
2. The grievance of the appellant is that the order of the HighCourt dated 22 August 2016 was passed even though the period oflimitation for challenging the award under Section 34 was still to expire.BThe award of the arbitral tribunal was made on 22 April 2016. Applicationsunder Section 33 were disposed of on 04 June 2016. Hence accordingto the appellant, the period of limitation for filing the petition under Section34 of the Act would have expired on 03 September 2016.
3. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the applicationunder Section 9, which was filed on 13 June, 2016 within the period ofClimitation prescribed for challenging the award ought not to have beenentertained and, in any event, such an order could not have been passedby the High Court within the parameters of Section 9 of the Act.
4. Notice in these proceedings was issued on 18 September 2016and the operation of the impugned order of the High Court was directed Dto remain stayed till the next date of listing.
5. During the course of the hearing, we have been apprised of thefact that the award of the arbitral tribunal has been set aside on 29November 2018 by the Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge,Special Commercial Court, Gurugram. Since the arbitral award hasEbeen set aside, the basis on which the impugned order was passed bythe High Curt ceases to survive.6. Hence, the order of the High Court dated 22 August 2016 is setaside.
7. Before concluding, it would be necessary for this Court toFobserve that the present judgment should not be construed as anexpression of opinion by the Court on the correctness of the order passedby the High Court, particularly, in view of the submission which hasbeen urged in the present proceedings that even on the date on whichthe order was passed by the High Court, it had acted in excess of itsjurisdiction.G
The Civil Appeal is disposed of. No costs.
All the rights and contentions of the parties in regard to thechallenge to the arbitral award are kept open to be urged in accordancewith law.
HNidhi Jain