HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13228 of 2026 With MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13246 of 2026 (M/s Kesarwani Sheetalaya Vs. Smt. Parwati Devi and others) Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ashish Mishra for the petitioner and Mr. Abhiuday Mehrotra and Mr. Rishabh Agrawal for the respondents. 2. Similar controversy is involved in both the aforesaid petitions, therefore, with the consent of the parties, both the petitions are decided at the admission stage by common order treating Matter U/ A 227 No. 13228 of 2026 as leading case. MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13228 of 2026 3. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 7.9.2026 passed by the Commercial Court, Allahabad whereby the petitioners applications Ga /31 and Ga/33 have been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute is arising out of the arbitral award dated 27.11.2016 passed by the learned Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 55 of 2010. He submits that by the impugned award, apart from the claim amount, a direction has been given to pay the interest @ 15 % per annum for a period from 29.10.2008. He submits that aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 34 of the Act registered as Arbitration Case No. 2 of 2017. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Mishra, Mohd. Arish Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhiuday Mehrotra, Rishabh Agarwal M/S Kesarwani & Company .....Petitioner(s) Smt. Parwati Devi And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) During pendency of the said appeal, the respondents have filed Execution Case No. 70 of 2017 in which the petitoner has preferred application Ga/31 and Ga/33 but the Commercial Court summarily rejected the said applications without assigning any reason. He submits that while rejecting the said applications, the Commercial Court has not assigned any cogent reason, therefore, the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 496. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the impugned order. He submits that an application under Section 36 (2) and (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been filed after almost 9 years of filing of appeal under Section 34 of the Act. The applicant did not move before the Court with reasonable expedition for interim prayer. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Sepco Electric Power Constructions Corporation Vs. Power Mech Projects Ltd. (2026) 3 SCC 701 and National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd Vs. Ishvakoo (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2026 SCC Online SC 1535. He further submits that while passing an order under Section 36 (2) and (3) of the Act, the Court has to keep in mind the provisions of Order 41, Rule 5 of CPC, which contemplates for deposit of decreetal amount with interest. To buttress his submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 705. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 7. The record shows that no reason has been assigned while rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner. 8. It is settled law that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. One of the most important aspect for necessitating A227 No. 13228 of 2026 2 to record reason is that it substitutes subjectivity with objectivity. It is well settled that not only the judicial order, but also the administrative order must be supported by reasons recording in it. 9. Highlighting this rule, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla & Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785, M/s Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India, 1969 (3) SCC 868 have observed that the administrative authority and the tribunal are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof would render the order liable to judicial chastisement. Similar view has been taken in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another (supra). 10. Once the reason has not been assigned by the Commercial Court while passing the impugned order, the impugned order is not justified. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court, the impugned orders passed in both the petitions cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed. 12. Both the petitions succeed are allowed. The matter is remanded to the Commercial Court, Prayagraj, who shall decide the applications Ga/31 and Ga/33, afresh in accordance with law by reasoned and speaking order, within a period of 15 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 13. Till disposal of the aforesaid applications or for a period 20 days, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner(s), herein. 14. It is made clear that no adjournment shall be granted to either of the parties till the disposal of the applications Ga/31 and Ga/33. September 23, 2026 Rahul Dwivedi/- A227 No. 13228 of 2026 3 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad