Case Law Details
M/s Lanco Amarkantak Power Ltd. Vs A.P. Panda, Chairman-cum-Managing Director (Chhattisgarh High Court)
it is quite vivid that this Court while granting the appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act of 1996 preferred by the petitioner not only set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge setting aside the award and restoring the arbitral award so passed by majority, but also directed SECL to pay the decretal amount which states as under: –
“39. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussion, the order passed by the learned District Judge granting application under Section 34(2) of the AC Act deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The award by majority as passed by the arbitral tribunal dated 13-4-2012 is hereby restored. The respondent is directed to return the decretal amount of Rs.22,95,00,000/- along with interest and Rs.39,00,297/-along with interest so specified and cost to the appellant (LAPL), forthwith.”
Against the above-stated order, SLP has been preferred by SECL which has been dismissed on 14-5-2018 and review petition has also been dismissed on 25-9-2018, as such, even the appellate order passed by this Court has become final and despite the appellate order, the contemnor has not complied with the award and therefore the contempt petition has been filed. The appellate order passed by this Court restoring the award clearly directs SECL to make payment of the amount which the contemnor has admittedly not complied with and as such, it cannot be held that since the execution petition under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 is maintainable, this Court being the constitutional court and the court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India cannot look into the fact as to whether its order directing payment of decretal amount has been complied with by the contemnor or it has been willfullydisobeyed by the contemnor. In my considered opinion, this Court is empowered to look into the compliance of the order of the court in order to keep the record of this court straight and it cannot be held to be not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of laying execution petition under Section 36 of the Act of 1996. As such, the preliminary objection filed in this behalf is hereby rejected and the contempt petition is held to be maintainable in law.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
