TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be entertained to secure execution of an arbitral award when an execution remedy was available before the competent court; (ii) what directions should govern deposit and release of compensation pending the challenge under section 34 of the arbitration law.
Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be entertained to secure execution of an arbitral award when an execution remedy was available before the competent court.
Analysis: The relief sought in the writ petition was in substance enforcement of the arbitral award. Where the award is executable through ordinary execution proceedings, the High Court ought not to convert itself into an executing court. The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy to execute the award required the claimants to be relegated to that remedy rather than invoking writ jurisdiction for execution.
Conclusion: The writ petition ought not to have been entertained for execution of the award under Article 226.
Issue (ii): What directions should govern deposit and release of compensation pending the challenge under section 34 of the arbitration law.
Analysis: Though the writ remedy was found inappropriate, the Court, considering the similar course adopted in an earlier matter, moulded relief by directing partial deposit and release of compensation, while also requiring expeditious disposal of the pending section 34 proceedings. The balance amount was to follow the result of those proceedings and be released according to law.
Conclusion: The High Court's order was modified and substituted by directions for deposit of 50% of the compensation, expeditious disposal of the section 34 proceedings, and deposit of the balance amount thereafter in accordance with the award and the parties' remedies in law.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was not allowed in full, but the impugned writ directions were substantially modified while preserving the landowners' entitlement to receive compensation in the manner directed.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition should not be used to enforce execution of an arbitral award when an efficacious execution remedy exists before the competent court; writ jurisdiction cannot be converted into an executing jurisdiction for such awards.
TaxTMI 
