Prakash Baruah vs. Jorhat Development Authority

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2022 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3169 of 2021]

PRAKASH BARUAH Appellant(s)

VERSUS

JORHAT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The present appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court in I.A. (C) No. 2211 of 2020 in Appeal No. 12 of 2019, whereby the High Court granted stay to the arbitral award and also to the execution proceedings thereof.

Shri Akshay Sapre, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the High Court is not sustainable, in view of the law laid down by this Court in certain judgments, including the order dated 02.08.2021 Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2022.09.24 13:14:29 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

passed in C.A. Nos. 4549-4550 of 2021 titled as "Toyo Engineering Corporation & Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd".

Mr. Gautam Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the contrary, submitted that since the High Court found that the arbitration proceedings were itself filed beyond the limitation period, sufficient cause was made out to stay the same.

He further submitted that since the respondent is an organ of the State, it is not going to run away and as such, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment.

While granting stay, the only security that has been directed to be deposited by the High Court is an undertaking from the respondents. This Court repeatedly has held that, normally, money decrees and an arbitral awards should not be stayed without providing sufficient security.

It has also been consistently held that merely because the party seeking such a stay is a State or an organ of the State, that cannot be a ground for giving it differential or special

2

treatment.

In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment is not sustainable and the same is quashed and set aside.

The respondents are directed to deposit 50 per cent of the decreetal amount before the High Court. The respondents are also directed to provide solvent security for 50 per cent of the balance amount. The amount shall be deposited within four weeks from today.

On a deposit of such amount, the appellant would be at liberty to make an application for the withdrawal of the amount, which shall be considered by the High Court in accordance with law.

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

….........................J (B.R. GAVAI)

...........................J (C.T. RAVIKUMAR )

New Delhi September 16, 2022 ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.13 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3169/2021

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2021 in IA(C) No. 2211/2020 passed by the Gauhati High Court)

PRAKASH BARUAH Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

JORHAT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 26176/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Date : 16-09-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Akshay Sapre, Adv. Ms. Phalguni Nigam, Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Swaroop, Adv.

Mr. Akshay Sapre, Adv.

Mr. Abhijeet Swaroop, Adv.

Mr. Vinam Gupta, AOR

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Gautam Choudhary, Adv.

Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR

Mr. Pawan Kishore Singh, Adv.

Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(DEEPAK SINGH) (ANJU KAPOOR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) [Signed order is placed on the file]