1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.3974/2008 The Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Devp. Corpn. Vs Shri A. C. Chenna Reddy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Shri. Nitin Sambre, Advocate for petitioner. Shri O. D. Kakade, Adv. For sole respondent. CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Dated : 10th December, 2008. Heard Advocate Sambre for the petitioner and Advocate Kakde for sole respondent. An award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act came to be passed against the present petitioner and it was challenged within time by them by filing proceedings under Section 34 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Yavatmal. The petitioner in the said proceedings filed an application under Section 9 for grant of interim stay to the execution. The learned Principal District Judge vide its order dated 21/2/2007 directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.71,31,947/-. As that amount was not deposited within reasonable time, the respondent filed execution and claimed an amount of Rs.1,91,80,000/-. The petitioner then raised objection, in view of provisions of Section 36 in execution 2 proceedings and by the impugned order dated 10/6/2008, the Adhoc District Judge-1, Yavatmal, has rejected that objection after noticing that the order of Principal District & Sessions Judge under Section 9 was not complied with and as such, there was no reason of granting any stay to the petitioner. In this backdrop, Advocate Sambre states that because of specific provisions of Section 36 of the Act, the execution itself could not have been filed and hence, as the execution was not maintainable, the impugned order is unsustainable. He states that the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, should be directed to decide proceedings under Section 34 as expeditiously as possible. He further points out that because of the interim order passed by this Court on 9/9/2008, the petitioner has deposited Rs. 35,66,000/- in the District Court at Yavatmal. Advocate Kakde for sole respondent argues that the analogy of Section 36 is not relevant here because the respondent has not sought execution of award. As such, he points out that as the order of Principal District & Sessions Judge imposing certain condition, while granting stay was not complied with, for getting that order executed, the present execution came to be filed. He further states that the view taken by the Lower Court is proper and there is no jurisdiction error. After hearing the parties, I am satisfied that in view of provision of Section 36, the award itself could not have been executed as the recourse to Section 36 was within limitation. As 3 such, the petitioner need not have filed any application under Section 9 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge. It is because of consequential order passed upon it, that the respondent thought it appropriate and filed execution proceeding for recovery of the amount. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed rejecting the petitioner's objection, is hereby quashed and set aside. The objection raised by the petitioner is allowed. The petitioner shall however maintain the deposit of Rs.35,66,000/- with the Principal District Judge during the pendency of Section 34 proceedings. The said proceedings before the Principal District Judge are expedited and the same shall be decided as early as possible and in any case by 31/03/2009. Rule accordingly. JUDGE Andurkar.