B.B.M. ENTERPRISES versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 8 · Decided: 30-07-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
B.B.M. ENTERPRISES
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2834 of 2020)
JULY 30, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
s. 34 – Petition under – Filed after expiry of limitation period
of 120 days – Dismissed by District Judge – High Court setting
aside the order of District Judge remanded the matter – In second
round of litigation District Judge dismissed the petition – High Court
by impugned order again remanded the matter to be adjudicated
afresh – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: District Judge had
disposed of the petition u/s. 34 giving adequate reasons – High
Court wrongly remanded the matter – Appeal disposed of.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2834
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.03.2019 of the High Court
at Calcutta in FMA No. 1298 of 2017.
With
Civil Appeal No. 2835 of 2020.
Saurav Agarwal, Priyankar Saha, Sarad Kumar Singhania,
Anshuman Chowdhury, Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,
Ms. Srija Choudhury, Saifuddin Shams, Mohd. Shakeib Naru, Advs. for
the Respondents.
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 8
8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
9
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.F. NARIMAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length.
3. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on
behalf of the respondent, painstakingly took us through the records,
including the Award, in order to point out various deficiencies which,
according to him, fell within the parameters of a Section 34 petition as a
result of which we should not therefore disturb the judgment of the High
Court, which has merely remanded the matter and directed that the
matter be disposed of in six months.
4. This matter has a chequered history. The Award that was made
by the learned Arbitrator was on 16.09.2009. Five claims were made
before him amounting in all to Rs. 2,08,59,989. However, ultimately the
Award that was made in favour of the appellant herein was to the extent
of Rs. 1,38,44,430 plus 15% on a sum of Rs. 1,17,77,080 as pendente
lite interest plus Rs. 2,67,350 by way of costs without interest. If the
said amount, dehors costs, was not paid in four months, the interest
figure would become higher and would attract 18%.
5. When the Award was put into execution, the Executing Court
pointed out that by the date of its order dated 11.02.2010, the 120 day
period – beyond which no Award can be challenged – was already over
and therefore proceeded with the execution. It was only when an order
of 17.02.2010 was made directing the RBI to disburse the awarded
amount after attaching the Government’s Bank Account, and the reply
of the RBI dated 20.02.2010 stating that adequate funds were not in
such account, that the matter was then remitted by the High Court by an
order dated 24.02.2010 stating that the Government was willing to deposit,
at that point of time, 50% of the decretal dues in two weeks. At this
stage, therefore, the High Court set aside the Executing Court’s order
dated 17.02.2010. It is only after these proceedings that the respondent
woke up and filed a Section 34 petition challenging the Award on
02.04.2010.
6. In the first round of litigation, the Section 34 petition was
dismissed by the learned District Judge on 22.03.2012, stating that the
period of 120 days was over, and hence no foray into the merits would
B.B.M. ENTERPRISES v. STATE OF WEST
BENGAL & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
be permissible at this stage. However, by an order dated 11.01.2013, the
Division Bench set aside this judgment and remanded the matter for a
fresh hearing.
7. The learned District Judge, in the second round, by an order
dated 22.12.2016, heard learned counsel for both parties and found as
follows:-
“A court must not substitute its interpretation as against the views
and interpretation of the arbitrator, the finding of the arbitrator
requires to be accepted without demur because court has no power
or jurisdiction to sit over the finding of fact arrived at by the
arbitrators. In the instant case, so far I could realize from the
argument as advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the petitioner and
also from the petition under Sec. 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation
Act and the photo copy of documents placed before the court
that the petitioner challenges the finding of facts but nothi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.