UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S KIRAN CONSTRUCTION
LAWS(GAU)-2018-7-137
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on July 26,2018

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Appellant
VERSUS
M/S Kiran Construction Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KALYAN RAI SURANA,J. - (1.) Heard Mrs. U. Chakraborty, the learned special counsel for the N.F. Railways, the appellant herein as well as Mr. R. Hussain, the learned advocate for the respondent.
(2.) By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in M. Ex. Case No. 49/2007.
(3.) The case projected by the petitioner is that an arbitration dispute arose in connection with the Contract Agreement No. GC/22 dated 22.01.1993 and the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitral award dated 02.12.2004 was passed, by which the claim Nos. 1 and 2 amounting to Rs. 22,47,507/- and Rs. 15,46,480/- respectively was awarded in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. From the document accompanying with this revision as well as the affidavit and counter affidavit filed in the matter, it appears that the petitioner did not prefer any application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and moreover, no appeal was preferred under Section 37 of the said 1996 Act. The arbitral award was put to execution and the said proceeding was registered as M. Ex. No. 49/2007, which was made over to the court of learned Additional District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati for disposal. In this application, it is projected that the authorities of the Forest Department of the State had issued a demand for payment of royalty upon the petitioner herein in respect of the forest produced collected by the respondent on the ground that their contractor had not provided utilization certificate. It is projected that by order dated 07.03.2005, the petitioner had demanded that the respondent should deposit a sum of Rs. 27,27,891/- towards Forest Royalty as directed by the Arbitrators, subject to statutory deduction which included a ad hoc deposit of Rs. 34,28,918/-. However, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that the respondent had denied the liability of Forest Royalty as the earth was filled up from private land without any documentary evidence.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.