KANPUR JAL SANSTHAN & ANOTHER versus M/S. BAPU CONSTRUCTION
Order 27 Rules BA and 88 CPC apply only to the Government in exclusivity, not to agencies/instrumentalities like Kanpur Jal Sansthan; Order 41 Rule 5 CPC applies to an appeal under Section 37 Arbitration Act and conditions for deposit/security can be imposed. The High Court's order requiring deposit and allowing withdrawal of 50% without security lacked justifiable reason; hence, the appellant should instead furnish security for the entire award amount.
- Parties
- Appellant: Kanpur Jal Sansthan; Respondent: M/s. Bapu Construction
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 03 January 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Rejecting Objection Under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Outcome
- Appeal disposed of with modifications
- Legal Topics
- Enforceability of Arbitral Award, Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure, Deposit and Security in Stay Applications, Definition of Government Under CPC
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kanpur Jal Sansthan
Appellant
M/s. Bapu Construction
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Rejecting Objection Under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Order 41 Rule 5 CPC applies to an appeal against rejection of objection under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- 2 Whether Kanpur Jal Sansthan qualifies as 'Government' under Order 27 Rules BA and 88 CPC.
- 3 Whether the High Court correctly imposed deposit and withdrawal conditions on Jal Sansthan as appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
Order 27 Rules BA and 88 CPC apply only to the Government in exclusivity, not to agencies/instrumentalities like Kanpur Jal Sansthan; Order 41 Rule 5 CPC applies to an appeal under Section 37 Arbitration Act and conditions for deposit/security can be imposed. The High Court's order requiring deposit and allowing withdrawal of 50% without security lacked justifiable reason; hence, the appellant should instead furnish security for the entire award amount.
Court Disposition
Appeal disposed of with modifications
Orders
- Order of High Court modified: Appellant directed to furnish security for entire award amount to the satisfaction of District Judge within six weeks.
- Request to High Court to dispose of appeal by end of June 2014.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment