Rajesh Goel vs Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 12.8.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Moga, in which it has been ordered that the Petitioner be detained in civil imprisonment for disobeying the order of the Court for a period of one month under the provisions of Order XX1 Rule 41 (2) of the CPC (for brevity ''the Code'').

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Executing Court.

Admitted facts are that as per arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties, the dispute which arose between them was referred to the sole Arbitrator, who passed an award dated 19.4.2006 regarding recovery of Rs. 2,69,49,833.40 paise. After passing the said award, the present execution petition was filed by the Respondent before learned Additional District Judge, Moga. However, objection was filed by the present Petitioner that he has already filed an application u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ''the Act'') for setting aside the award and hence, during the pendency of the same, award cannot be executed.

It is pertinent to reproduce Section 36 of the Act, which reads as under:

Enforcement - Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award u/s 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 (5 of 1908) in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court.

Hence, in view of the aforementioned provision, when an application for setting aside the award has already been made, which is pending adjudication, execution of the award is not permitted till application u/s 34 of the Act is finally decided. This legal proposition has also not been disputed by learned Counsel for the Respondent. He has also placed reliance upon order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 211 of 2010 titled M/s Jai Hanuman Traders v. Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (Markfed) decided on 24.9.2010 and however, he has requested that as application u/s 34 of the Act is pending since 2006, learned Court where the said application is pending, be directed to expedite the hearing.

Hence, in view of the same, the present petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. Execution of the award shall remain stayed during the pendency of the application u/s 34 of the Act. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the application u/s 34 of the Act as the same is stated to be pending since 2006 and efforts be made to decide the same within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.