Allahabad High Court: In a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, wherein the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge, Etawah to hear an execution petition for an award passed in Kanpur was challenged, the single judge bench of Neeraj Tiwari, J. held that since the land being acquired in in Etawah, the passing of the arbitral award at Kanpur will have no bearing in filing of execution proceeding at Etawah in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) as well as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Background:
The land of the respondents had been acquired by the National Highway Authority of India (‘NHAI’) for widening of the National Highway No. 2 at Maneyamau, Etawah and amount of compensation had been determined according to Section 3-G(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (‘the NH Act’) by the Additional District Magistrate, Etawah. NHAI challenged the aforesaid compensation by filing an arbitration application under Section 3-G(2) of the NH Act before the Additional Commissioner, Administration, Kanpur and an award was passed therein.
Thereafter, NHAI filed a restoration application and condonation of delay application against the final award order, but it was rejected. They also filed a case under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act before the Additional District Judge Etawah, which was also rejected. Against the rejection of their Section 34 petition, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act wherein no stay or interim order has been passed till date.
Subsequently, the respondent filed a petition for execution of the award. In the said execution case, NHAI objected to the jurisdiction of the court of Additional District Judge, Etawah and their contention was rejected. Hence, this petition was filed against the aforesaid rejection.
Issue: Whether jurisdiction for filing execution case lies with the Judgeship of Kanpur or Etawah.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court discussed and placed reliance on the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Samad (2018) 3 SCC 622 wherein the Supreme Court held that the enforcement of an award through its execution can be filed anywhere in the country where such decree can be executed and there is no requirement for obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court, which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. Considering the scope of Section 36 of the Act, 1996, the Supreme Court viewed that while award passed by arbitral tribunal is deemed to be a decree under Section 36 of the Act, 1996 and there was no deeming fiction anywhere to hold that the Court within whose jurisdiction the arbitral award was passed, should be taken to be the Court which passed the decree.
The Court also noted that the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case took the specific view that the Arbitration Act transcends all territorial barriers. The Court noted that the findings in this case have been affirmed by the Supreme Court, such as in the case of Cheran Properties Ltd. v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. (2018) 16 SCC 413 and similar view has also been taken by this court in other cases.
Coming to the facts of the case at hand, the Court noted that the dispute is arising out of acquisition of land of NHAI at District Etawah, meaning thereby, property and assets of NHAI are situated in Etawah. Therefore, the office of NHAI being in Kanpur or arbitration award being pronounced at Kanpur would make no difference in filing of execution proceeding at Etawah in light of interpretation made by the Supreme Court and the provisions of CPC as well as the Arbitration Act.
Regarding the argument of respondents about NHAI having given up the right to raise objection about the jurisdiction, the Court stated that NHAI have themselves preferred appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before District Judge, Etawah against an award given at Kanpur. Therefore, the Court held that NHAI have acquiesced their right and their objection is barred by Section 4 of the Arbitration Act so they cannot raise these objections at this stage.
Therefore, the Court held that there are no infirmities or illegalities in the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
Also read:
[National Highway Authority of India v. Jagpal Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine All 6886, decided on 11-11-2024]
Judgment by: Justice Neeraj Tiwari
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Shiv Kumar Singh
For the respondent: Devansh Misra,C.S.C.,Devesh Kumar Verma
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 HERE
