CR No.3081 IN Apollo Green Man Structurals CORAM: Present: TRIBHUVAN been filed by Additional Court at release of Bank guarantee under Section ‘the 1996 No.3081 of 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH Green Energy Limited Versus Structurals Private Limited CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Jerry, Advocate, and Mr. Vardaan Seth, Advocate, Mr. Pancham Surana, Advocate, Mr. Himanshu Setia, Advocate, TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. This petition under Article 227 filed for setting aside order dated 02.05.2025, Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Gurugram, in CIS No.ARB-02 of the decretal amount ₹19,33,71,085 guarantee of the equivalent amount, Section 34 of the Arbitration and Act’) against the award dated 10.10.2023, 1 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3081 of 2025 (O&M) Pronounced on: 01.07.2025 …Petitioner Versus …Respondent TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Advocate, with and for the petitioner. Advocate, and Advocate, for the respondent. 227 of the Constitution of India 02.05.2025, Annexure P-16, passed Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial 02-2024, whereby he has ordered 19,33,71,085 to the respondent on furnishing amount, during pendency of the petition Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 10.10.2023, Annexure P-7. (O&M) …Petitioner …Respondent has passed Commercial ordered furnishing petition short, MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.3081 2. parties were 10.10.2023, with simple cause of respondents. Gurugram which is pending 2.1. Delhi High Pvt. Limited Energy Limited the Executing regard to mentioned 2.2. application 36(3) of the partially allowed the decretal the respondent/decree No.3081 of 2025 (O&M) Facts relevant to decide the were referred to arbitration, which 10.10.2023, directing the petitioner to pay simple interest at the rate of twelve per of action, along with ₹13,09,105 respondents. The award was challenged Gurugram by filing objection petition under pending adjudication. The respondent/decree holder High Court, OMP (ENF) (Comm.) Limited v. Apollo International Limited Limited) for enforcement of the award. Executing Court passed an interim order to title of immovable properties mentioned in the list of assets furnished by Later, the Commercial Court application for stay on enforcement of the the 1996 Act, vide order dated 06.09.2024 allowed by requesting the Delhi decretal amount to be deposited by the respondent/decree holder. The order reads 11. Admittedly, an execution by the claimant/respondent before i.e. case titled as Man Structurals International Limited (Now OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 18/2024 2 the matter are, disputes between which led to passing of the award dated pay a sum of ₹14,44,70,000 along per cent per annum from the date 13,09,105 as arbitration costs, to challenged before the Commercial Court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act holder filed an execution petition in (Comm.) 18 of 2024 titled Man Structurals Limited (now known as Apollo Green award. Vide order dated 23.01.2024, order for maintaining status quo with properties belonging to the petitioner by the respondent. Court decided the petitioner’s the arbitral award filed under Section 06.09.2024, Annexure P-10. It was Delhi High Court/Executing Court that the petitioner may not be disbursed reads thus: execution petition has already been filed before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court Structurals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Apollo (Now Apollo Green Energy Limited) 18/2024 in which a direction has been the dated along date of the Court at Act the Structurals Green 23.01.2024, with as petitioner’s Section was that disbursed to filed Court Apollo Limited) been MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.3081 However, rejected by learned counsel Annexure 2.3. challenged CR No.5996 Annexure decretal amount not to disburse the 1996 Act, No.3081 of 2025 (O&M) issued by the Hon'ble Delhi 15.07.2024 directing the judgment petitioner to deposit the decretal Registrar General of the Hon'ble weeks from the date of order Delhi. 12. In the light of discussion observing anything on the prejudice the parties while Section 34 of the Act, applicant/petitioner is partly decretal amount by the applicant/petitioner Registrar General of Hon'ble executing court is requested amount to the respondent/claimant/DH main petition under Section stands disposed of in the aforesaid However, request of the Commercial Court by the Executing Court, vide order counsel for the respondent and Annexure ‘A’). The order, dated 06.09.2024, challenged by the petitioner before this Court 5996 of 2024, which was dismissed Annexure P-11. This Court was of the view amount with the Executing Court/Delhi disburse it till disposal of the objection Act, safeguarded the petitioner’s 3 Delhi High Court vide order dated judgment debtor i.e. the present decretal amount with the learned Hon'ble High Court of Delhi within order passed by Hon'ble High Court discussion made above and without merits of the case lest it may deciding the main petition under the application moved by tly allowed. On depositing of applicant/petitioner with the learned Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Hon'ble requested not to disburse the aforesaid respondent/claimant/DH till the decision of Section 34 of the Act. The application aforesaid terms. Court not to disburse the amount was order dated 23.09.2024 (produced and retained on the case file 06.09.2024, granting conditional stay was Court by filing a revision petition, dismissed vide judgment dated 20.11.2024 view that the direction to deposit Court/Delhi High Court with the request objection petition under Section 34 petitioner’s interests. dated present learned within 8 Court of without may under the the learned Hon'ble aforesaid the application was oduced by as was petition, 20.11.2024, the request 34 of MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.3081 2.4. petitioner filing SLP 13.12.2024, In this manner, decretal amount and the directed not unless a specific the petitioner 2.5. of the 1996 No.3081 of 2025 (O&M) The matter was thereafter taken petitioner challenged the order, dated 20.11.2024, SLP (C) no.29157 of 2024, which 13.12.2024, Annexure P-12, with the following Heard the learned Senior counsel Though no case is made out granting conditional stay, on senior counsel appearing for to deposit the amount in terms 6th September, 2024 passed period of four months from deposited within four months Court, the stay shall stand vacated to the Court. We make it clear that as the same shall be invested in in any Nationalised Bank. The Section 34 of Arbitration and 'the Act'), shall not permit amount unless a specific application the respondent and unless application. manner, under orders of the Supreme amount was extended up to four Commercial Court hearing the not to permit withdrawal or disbursement specific application for withdrawal petitioner was heard thereupon. The proceedings of the objection 1996 Act remained pending with 4 taken to the Supreme Court as 20.11.2024, passed by this Court which was disposed of vide order dated following observations: counsel appearing for the petitioner. out for interference with the order on the prayer made by the learned for the petitioner, we extend the time terms of paragraph 12 of order dated passed by the Commercial Court by from today. If the amount is months from today with the Commercial vacated without any further reference as soon as the amount is deposited, in the interest bearing Fixed Deposit The Court in which petition under and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, permit withdrawal or disbursement application for withdrawal is made the petitioner is heard on Supreme Court the time to deposit months from the date of the order, the petition under Section 34 was disbursement of the decretal amount withdrawal was made by the respondent and objection petition filed under Section with the Commercial Court, and the by dated petitioner. order learned time dated by a not Commercial reference deposited, Deposit under short, of made by the the order, was amount and Section 34 the MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.3081 respondent/decree release of Annexure 11.04.2025, passed the No.3081 of 2025 (O&M) respondent/decree holder filed an application of the decretal amount deposited by Annexure P-14. It was responded to by 11.04.2025, Annexure P-15. Considering the impugned order dated 02.05.2025, 13. A division bench of Hon'ble Court vide order dated 22.10.2024 2024 in FAO-CARB-16-2024, Ltd. Versus Ishan Singh dealt case before Hon'ble High Court by the successful claimant seeking amount deposited by the non award passed against it. After Punjab and Haryana High Court and ordered releasing of applicant-appellant before Hon'ble bank guarantee of an equivalent this court as the amount was non-applicant-appellant during under Section 34 of the Act applicant-respondent before the notice to the non-applicant-appellant of justice. A similar view was Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana 06.11.2024 passed in CM- FCARB-2024 in/and FAO matter titled as M/s Countrywide Prof. Tej Ram Yadav. 14. In the present case also, under Section 34 of the Act court and the awarded amount with this court by the non-applicant/petitioner 5 application under Section 151 CPC by the petitioner, dated 22.02.2025, the petitioner by filing reply dated Considering the same, the Commercial Court 02.05.2025, directing as under: Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High 22.10.2024 passed in CM-60-FCARB 2024, titled as M/s Spaze Towers Pvt. dealt with a similar question. In Court also, an application was moved seeking permission to withdraw non-applicant/appellant in view After hearing both the sides, Hon'ble Court allowed the said application the sum deposited by the non Hon'ble High Court on furnishing equivalent amount to the satisfaction was deposited before this court by during the pendency of the petition Act whose release was sought by the Hon'ble High Court after giving appellant as it would serve the ends was also taken by a division bench Haryana High Court vide order dated -78-FCARB-2024 in/and CM- FAO-CARB-50-2023 and connected Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versus also, it is a similar situation as petition is pending adjudication before this amount with interest is now deposited applicant/petitioner or the same for 22.02.2025, dated Court High FCARB- Pvt. the moved the view of Hon'ble application non- furnishing a satisfaction of the petition the giving ends bench of dated -40- connected Versus petition this deposited has MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.3081 3. for the petitioner directions Commercial No.3081 of 2025 (O&M) been received by way of transfer General Hon'ble High Court attached bank accounts of the application moved by the applicant/respondent, releasing an amount of Rs.19,33,71,085/ not been disputed by the non or otherwise. In fact learned of order dated 29.04.2025 passed 18/2024, EX.APPL.(OS) 1960/2024, EX.APPL.(OS) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Apollo International Green Energy Limited) in judgment debtor appearing before not disputed the sum of Rs.19,33,71,805/ award passed against it and has accounts of the judgment Rs.19,33,71,805/-. 15. In the light of discussion moved by the applicant/respondent that an amount of Rs.19,33,71,085/ released in favour of the applicant/respondent bank guarantee of an equivalent this court which shall remain under Section 34 of the Act. tender an undertaking in the applicant/respondent will get furnished before its date of expiry. of in the aforesaid terms. In this factual background, Mr. petitioner contends that the impugned directions issued by the Supreme Court, Commercial Court was required to offer 6 transfer from the learned Registrar Court of Delhi at New Delhi and from the non-applicant/petitioner. In applicant/respondent, it has prayed Rs.19,33,71,085/-. This calculation non-applicant/petitioner by filing reply counsel for DH has shown a copy passed in OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 1957/2024, ΕΧ.APPL.(OS) 20/2025, titled as Man Structural International Limited (Now Apollo in which learned counsel for before Hon'ble Delhi High Court Rs.19,33,71,805/- being due as per has prayed for de-attachment of nt debtor beyond the sum discussion made above, the application applicant/respondent is disposed of by ordering Rs.19,33,71,085/- deposited with this court applicant/respondent on its furnishing equivalent amount to the satisfaction remain valid till decision of the petition The applicant/respondent shall also the form of an affidavit that get the validity of the bank guarantee expiry. The application is disposed Mr. Chopra, learned senior counsel impugned order is per se violative of Court, as in terms therewith offer due opportunity of hearing to Registrar from the for has reply copy (COMM.) ΕΧ.APPL.(OS) Structural Apollo the has the the of application ordering court be furnishing satisfaction of petition also the guarantee disposed nsel the the the MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.3081 petitioner respondent. by the petitioner of the amount. consider application violation aside. Even why the decretal objection Instead of amount has petitioner. favour, it and will also has been kept the parties by the petitioner, the impugned 4. vehemently Firstly, he Court that its level best to attach No.3081 of 2025 (O&M) petitioner before passing the order for respondent. This would mean considering petitioner in his reply to the respondent’s amount. This has not been done, any of the objections raised application or during hearing of the matter. of the Principles of Natural Justice Even otherwise, the impugned order decretal amount is required to be petition under Section 34 of the of ensuring conclusion of the pending has been ordered to be released petitioner. In case the objection petition will have to run after the respondent also loose interest which is being kept in the form of FDRs. Lastly, parties have been balanced by directing petitioner, and there is no justification impugned order. Per contra, Mr. Surana, learned vehemently opposed the submissions made he has contended that it has not that decretal amount was not willingly best to evade depositing the same its Bank accounts, and the amount 7 release of decretal amount to considering and deciding the objections raised respondent’s application seeking release done, as the impugned order does by the petitioner, either in matter. This shows the order is Justice as well, and needs to be order does not record any reason as be released at this stage, when the 1996 Act is ripe for arguments. pending proceedings, the decretal which has caused prejudice to petition is finally decided in petitioner’s respondent to get the amount recovered, being generated as the decretal amount Lastly, he contends that equities between directing deposit of entire decretal amount justification to release the same by passing learned counsel for the respondent, made by learned senior counsel. not been brought to the notice of willingly deposited. The petitioner tried same which forced the Executing Court amount from those accounts was the raised release not the is in set as to the arguments. decretal the petitioner’s recovered, amount between amount passing has counsel. the tried Court was MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.3081 transferred interim order, Court, whereby amount during was not challenged on releasing Thirdly, it decree which release is be looked being decree interlocutory conditioned amount. As maintainable. exercised; by this Court 5. considered. 6. award dated objection Court at Gurugram, the award Court, vide No.3081 of 2025 (O&M) transferred under Court orders. Secondly order, dated 23.09.2024, passed by whereby the Commercial Court’s during pendency of Section 34 petition challenged before the Supreme Court. releasing the amount to respondent, it has been contended that the which cannot be stayed. Simply sufficient for the Court to pass looked into for the purpose as the respondent decree holder. Fourthly, it has been interlocutory in nature whereby release conditioned upon furnishing of adequate As per settled law, revision against maintainable. Besides, the discretion vested exercised; there is no error apparent on record Court is not called for. Submissions made by learned considered. As per facts apparent on record, dated 10.10.2023, in response petition under Section 34 of the Gurugram, which is pending adjudication. award are also pending before the Delhi vide order dated 06.09.2024, granted 8 Secondly, much stress has been laid on by the Delhi High Court/Executing request not to release the decretal petition stands rejected. This order Court. Accordingly, there is no nor can the same be objected award is in the form of a money Simply moving of an application for an order; no other aspect needs respondent is entitled to the amount been contended that impugned order of the decretal amount has been adequate Bank guarantee of an equivalen against an interlocutory order is vested in the Court has been rightly record and, accordingly, interference learned counsel for the parties have been record, learned Arbitrator passed whereto the petitioner filed the 1996 Act before the Commercial adjudication. Execution proceedings Delhi High Court. The Commercial granted conditional stay directing the Court/Executing decretal order bar to. money its needs to amount order is been equivalent not rightly interference been the an Commercial proceedings of Commercial the MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.3081 petitioner Court not was declined Commercial petitioner which was before the merits, and amount be bearing fixed permit its purpose was thereupon. months from senior counsel, within time attachment dated 22.02.2025, Commercial 6.1. the decretal application of the objections with. Actually, the facts - No.3081 of 2025 (O&M) petitioner to deposit the decretal amount not to disburse the same during pendency declined vide order dated 23.09.2024. Commercial Court’s order, dated 06.09.2024, petitioner before this Court by filing revision was dismissed vide judgment dated the Supreme Court, wherein the judgment and vide order dated 13.12.2024 be transferred to the Commercial fixed deposit in any Nationalised its withdrawal or disbursement unless was made by the respondent and thereupon. Also, the time to deposit decretal from the date of the Supreme Court counsel, the amount was, accordingly, time on 07.02.2025 in the accounts attachment since 21.10.2024. Soon thereafter, 22.02.2025, was made by the Commercial Court vide impugned order dated A perusal of the impugned order decretal amount has been recorded; application having been preferred by the objections taken by the petitioner Actually, the need to release the amount - (i) the Commercial Court had 9 amount with a request to the Executing pendency of the petition. The request 23.09.2024. In the meanwhile, 06.09.2024, was challenged by revision petition, CR No.5996 of 2024, dated 20.11.2024. This was questioned judgment was not interfered with 13.12.2024 it was directed that the decretal Commercial Court and deposited in an interest Nationalised Bank. And the Court shall unless a specific application for the petitioner was afforded hearing decretal amount was extended by four Court order. As submitted by learned accordingly, deposited by the petitioner accounts which were already under thereafter, application for its release, respondent, and allowed by dated 02.05.2025. order shows no ground for releasing recorded; it only mentions the factum the respondent for the purpose. None against the release has been dealt amount is to be seen in the context itself granted conditional stay vide Executing request the the 2024, questioned with on decretal interest not the hearing four learned petitioner under release, the releasing factum of None dealt context of vide MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.3081 order dated with the Executing of the objection stands affirmed equities; against this circumstances for some delayed decision Court permitting not to be the release the petitioner, been incorporated. the release, Court. The award being the situation against it deposits and objection of any justification, 6.2. the orders in/and FAO No.3081 of 2025 (O&M) dated 06.09.2024, directing the petitioner Executing Court, and requested objection petition under Section 34 affirmed by this Court vide order dated (iii) the Supreme Court has declined this Court’s judgment. Besides, circumstances since then. Only the objection more time. However, it is not decision of the petition in any manner. permitting release of the amount only read as a mandate to release the release is permitted for justifiable grounds petitioner, or else the requirement to incorporated. This Court is at a loss release, as none has been indicated The respondent is also unable to being a money decree, the amount situation at the time of granting conditional already stands declined on merits. and earning interest, to be given petition is finally decided. The impugned justification, and contrary to the facts Also, reliance in the impugned orders passed by a Division Bench of FAO-CARB-16-2024 titled M/s 10 petitioner to deposit decretal amount against its release during pendency 34 of the 1996 Act; (ii) the order dated 20.11.2024, as it balanced declined to entertain the challenge Besides, there has been no change objection petition has remained pending not the case that the petitioner manner. The direction by the Supreme only after hearing the petitioner, the same. Apparently, it only means grounds to be ascertained after hearing to afford a hearing would not have to understand the reasons requiring even remotely by the Commercial cite any; Mr. Surana only says amount cannot be withheld. But that was conditional stay as well, and challenge merits. The amount is lying in fixed given to the party in whose favour impugned order is, therefore, bereft facts on record. mpugned order, dated 02.05.2025, upon this Court in CM-60-FCARB-2024 Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. v. Ishan amount pendency order the challenge in pending has Supreme petitioner, is means hearing have requiring Commercial the was challenge fixed the bereft upon 2024 Ishan MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.3081 Singh, and FAO-CARB Ram Yadav Firstly, these Secondly, of appeals Act against the Court decretal amount 6.3. Commercial 23.09.2024, its release, order passed the order, undisputedly the Court account. Resultantly, and the High which is not 6.4. restrain this reasonable, evidence of any statutory No.3081 of 2025 (O&M) and CM-78-FCARB-2024 in/and CARB-50-2023 titled M/s Countrywide Yadav, dated 22.10.2024 and 06.11.2024, these are interim orders not laying , the same have been rendered on appeals after dismissal of objection petitions against the awards impugned therein. Court initially granted stay/conditional amount during pendency of the appeal. Still further, the contention Commercial Court’s request by the Delhi 23.09.2024, not to disburse the decretal amount release, is without substance. The order passed in the matter by the Supreme order, dated 23.09.2024, had not undisputedly was placed on record before was conscious of the fact and decided Resultantly, the doctrine of merger High Court order will stand merged not a mandate to release the decretal The interlocutory nature of this Court from exercising the jurisdiction reasonable, based on sound legal principles on record. The law on the issue statutory bar, a discretionary interlocutory 11 in/and CM-40-FCARB-2024 in/and Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Prof. 06.11.2024, respectively, is misplaced. laying down any binding precedent. on different facts, during pendency petitions under Section 34 of the 1996 therein. Thirdly, in none of the cases had stay/conditional stay against release of appeal. contention by Mr. Surana that rejection Delhi High Court, vide order dated amount will itself afford a basis order no longer subsists after the final Supreme Court dated 13.12.2024. Although specifically been challenged, before the Supreme Court. Accordingly, decided the matter after taking it into merger will be constructively applicable merged with the Supreme Court order, decretal amount, as already discussed. the impugned order will also jurisdiction to examine whether it principles, and justifiable in the light issue is well settled that, in the absence interlocutory order can be set aside in/and Tej misplaced. precedent. pendency 1996 had the rejection of dated for final Although challenged, it Accordingly, into applicable order, discussed. not it is light of absence aside in MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR No.3081 exercise of perverse. Supreme (Supp) SCC As discussed being unreasonable 7. impugned directed to the 1996 Act 01.07.2025 Maninder No.3081 of 2025 (O&M) of appellate or supervisory jurisdiction A reference in this regard can be Court in Wander Ltd. and another SCC 727, holding as under: 14. The appeals before the exercise of discretion by the appellate court will not interfere of the court of first instance except where the discretion exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously court had ignored the settled or refusal of interlocutory exercise of discretion is said to discussed herein before, the impugned unreasonable and has been passed sans In view of the discussion above, impugned order, dated 02.05.2025, is set aside, to expeditiously decide the objection Act. 01.07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 12 jurisdiction if it is mala fide, arbitrary be made to judgment rendered by another v. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 the Division Bench were against Single Judge. In such appeals, interfere with the exercise of discretion instance and substitute its own discretion discretion has been shown to have been capriciously or perversely or where settled principles of law regulating grant interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against to be an appeal on principle. … impugned order suffers from perversity, sans any basis. above, the petition is allowed. T aside, and the Commercial Court objection petition under Section 34 (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No arbitrary or the 1990 the the discretion discretion been the grant against perversity, The Court is 34 of MANINDER 2025.07.01 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.