Damodar Valley Corporation Ordered to Settle Arbitration Dispute: Supreme Court Calls for Conciliatory Resolution

The case of M/s Misra and Co. vs. Damodar Valley Corporation centered around the prolonged execution of an arbitration award. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the execution application was time-barred and whether the respondent, a public sector corporation, had unduly delayed compliance with a valid decree.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from a construction contract awarded to M/s Misra and Co. in 1983 by Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC). Disagreements over contract execution led to arbitration, and on May 24, 1988, the arbitrator awarded Rs. 5,78,873 in favor of the appellant.

The award was challenged, but the Civil Court confirmed it on March 16, 1991, making it a decree enforceable with an interest rate of 10% per annum. However, DVC did not comply with the decree, nor did it file an appeal against it.

In July 2000, the appellant sought a formal decree for execution, citing an outstanding amount of Rs. 16,39,063 (including interest). DVC objected, causing further delays in the preparation of the decree, which was finalized only on February 21, 2003. The appellant filed an execution application on June 30, 2006. DVC again objected, arguing that the execution application was barred by limitation as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Arguments (M/s Misra and Co.)

The appellant contended that:

• The delay in execution was due to DVC’s repeated objections and refusal to comply with the decree.
• The formal decree was finalized only in 2003, and the limitation period should begin from that date, not 1991.
• DVC had raised frivolous objections at every stage to prolong the litigation and avoid paying the due amount.
• Public sector corporations have a duty to resolve disputes amicably rather than prolonging them through unnecessary litigation.

Respondent’s Arguments (Damodar Valley Corporation)

The respondent countered by stating that:

• The execution petition was filed beyond the 12-year limitation period prescribed under Article 136 of the Limitation Act.
• Time begins to run from the date of the decree (March 16, 1991), not from when the formal decree was drawn up.
• The Supreme Court had ruled in West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation vs. Swadesh Agro Farming that the limitation period starts from the date of judgment, not the date of decree preparation.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court noted that this case was an example of how public sector corporations prolong litigation unnecessarily. The Court observed:

“Neither the respondent, a public sector corporation, complied with the judgment nor did it choose to file an appeal. When the appellant applied for decree preparation, the respondent raised objections, delaying the process by over two and a half years.”

The Court criticized DVC’s conduct, stating:

“Should a public sector corporation be allowed to take advantage of prolonged litigation caused by its own repeated objections?”

Referring to Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Rasal Singh, the Court highlighted the need for public sector institutions to adopt a conciliatory approach instead of engaging in unnecessary litigation:

“Public sector institutions should not enter into prolonged litigation and spend considerable sums of public money on cases that should have been resolved through conciliation and wisdom.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court directed Damodar Valley Corporation to explore a conciliatory resolution rather than prolong the dispute further. The Court held that:

• DVC must come up with a proposal to compensate the appellant fairly.
• The case would be listed after six weeks to allow DVC to submit a proposal for settlement.
• Public sector corporations should not misuse the legal system to delay payments lawfully owed.

The Supreme Court concluded:

“Before proceeding further, we call upon the Corporation to adopt a conciliatory method and come up with a proposal to compensate the appellant in the facts of the present case.”

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for arbitration enforcement and public sector litigation:

• It emphasizes that public sector corporations must not abuse legal loopholes to delay enforcement of valid arbitration awards.
• It sets a precedent for courts to encourage conciliation and out-of-court settlements in long-pending disputes.
• The judgment strengthens the enforceability of arbitration awards by preventing unnecessary delays in execution.
• Public sector entities may now face stricter scrutiny if they attempt to delay compliance with arbitration awards.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case highlights the urgent need for public sector institutions to resolve disputes in a timely and fair manner. By directing Damodar Valley Corporation to come up with a settlement proposal, the Court reinforced the principle that government entities should not engage in prolonged, wasteful litigation. This decision serves as a crucial reminder that arbitration awards must be respected and enforced without undue delay.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ms Misra and Co. vs Damodar Valley Corpo Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 16-08-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Arbitration Awards
See all petitions in Settlement Agreements
See all petitions in Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all allowed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category