KARTIKE ENTERPRISES Vs. DELHI JAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cm No.10098/2021 (Exemption)

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sundaram Finance Limited v. Abdul Samad and Anr, 2018 3 SCC 622 and of this Court in Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd.,2009 SCCOnLine(Del) 579 and on the Order dated 21.01.2021 in EFA(OS)(Comm) 01/2021 titled Union of India v. Atlanta Ltd. & Anr., to submit that the view taken by the learned District Judge in the Impugned Order cannot be sustained. He further places reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in BLA Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Asansol Durgapur Development Authority,2019 SCCOnLine(Cal) 1868 in support of his contention that Section 42 of the Act will have no application to the Execution Petition filed under Section 36 of the Act.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Associated Contractors, 2015 1 SCC 32 and submits that the Supreme Court has held that Section 42 of the Act would be applicable to any application filed even post the termination of the arbitral proceedings. She submits that an application under Section 36 of the Act being one under Part I of the Act, Section 42 would clearly be applicable to such proceedings. She further submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sundaram Finance Limited (supra) has not taken note of the earlier binding precedent in Associated Contractors (supra) inasmuch as Sundaram Finance Limited (supra) holds that Section 42 would not have any application post termination of the arbitral proceedings, which is contrary to what has been held in Associated Contractor (supra).