LexM/S MISRA AND CO. versus DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 8 S.C.R. 852 MIS MISRA AND CO. v. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION (Civil Appeal No. I 0502 of2017) AUGUST 16,2017 [A.K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.J Government litigation - Prolonging of - Contract between C appellant and respondent-public sector corporation - Award by Arbitrator against the Corporation - Civil Court vide order dated 16.03.1991 passed decree in terms of the award - Application by appellant on 19.07.2000 for drawing of decree - Preparation of decree directed by Court on 21.02.2003 - Application for execution D of decree by appellant on 30.06.2006 - Objection by Corporation that execution is barred by limitation - Trial court held the execution to be barred by limitation - Challenge before High Court, dismissed - On appeal, held: Public sector institutions should not enter into prolonged litigation and spend considerable sums of public money in cases which should have been adjusted by conciliatory and wise E attitudes - In the facts of the case, award of the arbitrator was made rule of the Court on 16.3.91 and the Court decreed the award - However, neither the Corporation complied with the decree nor chose to file an appeal - It raised various objections at every stage which precluded the appellant from taking fruits of decree till now F - Further, even according to the respondent, limitation period of twelve years had not run out from 16. 03.1991 - Corporation to come up with conciliatory proposal to compensate the appellant - Code of Civil Procedure, ·1908 - Or.XX. r.6A. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Rasal Singh and G others (1976) 2 SCC 179 - relied on. H West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation v. Swadesh Agro Farming and Storage Pvt. Ltd. and others, 1999 (8) SCC 315 : [1999) 2 Suppl. SCR 399 - referred to. 852 MIS MISRA AND CO. v. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION 853 Case Law Reference (1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 399 (1976) 2 sec 179 referred to relied on Para 7 Para 11 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CiviIAppeal No. 10502 of2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2016 of the High Court of Calcutta in C.O 3033 of2015 Siddhartha Chowdhury, Adv. for the Respondent. Petitioner-in-person. The following Order of the Court was delivered by ORDER ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 09. 08.2016 by which the application under Article 227 filed by appellant, challenging the order A B c and judgment dated 06.07.2015 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), D Durgapur has been dismissed. The appellant is a decree holder whose application to execute the decree has been rejected as barred by time which order has been affirmed by the High Court by the above mentioned judgment. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant has come up in this appeal. The respondent to the appeal is a public E sector corporation, namely, Damodar Valley Corporation(hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation'). 2. The present is a classic example of ill effects of prolonging litigation by parties and specially, when one of the party is a public sector corporation. The brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding this appeal are: 3. The appellant was given a contract for construction of a new administrative building for the Corporation in the year 1983. The disputes F and differences arose between the parties. The appellant requested for appointment of an arbitrator, which was not acceeded to by the Corporation, an arbitrator was appointed by the Civil Court who gave an G award dated 24.05.1988, awarding a sum of Rs.5,78,873/-. The award was filed in the Civil Court and various objections were raised by the Corporation in the Court. The Civil Court vide its order dated 16.03.1991 after rejecting the objections of the Corporation accepted the award dated 24.05.1988 and decree was passed in terms of the award with H 854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R. A interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. Neither any payment was made by the Corporation, after the award nor any appeal was filed against the order of the Court dated 16 .03 .1991. 4. An application was filed by appellant on 19.07.2000, stating that even after the award having been accepted by the Court on B 16.03.1991 payment has not been made. The application stated that amount payable up to 30.06.2000 including interest is Rs.16,39,063/-. The appellant prayed that the order be passed drawi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.