Tam Tam Pedda Guruva Reddy vs Mysore Minerals Limited

A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.—An Arbitral Award relating to certain works contract passed in favour of the petitioner was questioned under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by the respondent herein in A.S. No. 26/13, on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore. The suit having been dismissed on 06.07.2007, MFA 10778/2007 filed was allowed in part and the impugned Award made by the Arbitral Tribunal having been modified as per Judgment and Award dated 26.09.2013, petitioner has filed SLP 36186/2013 and the respondent has filed SLP 3916/2014.

Interim relief prayed in SLP 3916/2014 was rejected by the Apex Court on 21.02.2014.

To execute the Award dated 26.09.2013 passed in MFA 10778/2007, petitioner filed Execution Petition No. 3266/2013. In the said case, I.A. 2 was filed by the respondent, to permit deposit of the disputed amount of Rs. 78,00,000/- and interest, totally amounting to Rs. 2,37,12,000/-. Said application was allowed on 03.05.2014 and the respondent deposited Rs. 2,37,12,000/-.

A memo filed by the petitioner to pay the amount in deposit having been disposed of on 05.08.2014, directing the investment of the amount in deposit in a Nationalised Bank, for a period of 90 days, on account of the pendency of said SLPs before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, this writ petition was filed on 01.08.2014, to quash the said order and direct the Execution Court to release the deposited sum of Rs. 2,37,12,000/-.

Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is in the teeth of the order dated 24.02.2014 of Apex Court which specifically and in express terms rejected prayer for interim relief. He submitted that the impugned order of the Trial Court is wholly arbitrary and perverse since there is no interim order in favour of the respondent, the non release of the amount is wholly unjustified.

Learned advocate for the respondent on the other hand submitted that in view of pendency of SLP Nos. 3916/2014 and 36186/2013, the Execution Court is justified in directing investment of the sum deposited, in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank and deferring the release for a duration of about 90 days. He submitted that the impugned order having not caused any prejudice to the petitioner, this writ petition is not maintainable.

Since interim relief sought in SLP No. 3916/2014 filed against the Judgment and Award dated 26.09.2013 passed in MFA No. 10778/2007 was rejected on Rs. 21.02.2014 and there being no stay obtained from the Apex Court against the execution of the Award or the release of the deposited amount, the mere fact of filing of SLP No. 3916/2014 and its pendency will not entitle the respondent-JDR to oppose the release of the sum deposited by it in the Execution Case. Even though the respondent has filed SLP No. 3916/2014 and since the prayer for interim relief was rejected on 21.02.2014, there is no legal impediment for release of the sum deposited in Execution Case No. 3266/2013 in favour of the Decree Holder. The ground urged by learned advocate for the petitioner is well founded.

In the result, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Since the respondent has not produced any order passed in SLP No. 3916/2014, till date, not to permit the withdrawal of the sum deposited by it in Execution Case No. 3266/2013, the memo filed by the petitioner/Decree Holder, seeking release of the amount is allowed, subject to the condition that the payment, if and when received from the Execution Court, shall be subject to the final outcome of case pending in SLP No. 3916/2014.