# Sangeeta & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 395 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-10-10 - **Case number:** Public Interest Litigation No. 908 of 2023 - **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Om Prakash Shukla - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sangeeta-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49338 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote A) The Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 32 - Termination of proceedings, Section 36 - enforcement of arbitral awards, The Commercial Courts' Act, 2015 - Section 3 - constitution of Commercial Courts, Section 10(3) - Jurisdiction in respect of arbitration matters, Section 16 - Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application to commercial disputes - enforcement of an award through its execution can be initiated anywhere in the country where the decree can be executed and there is no requirement of obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. (Para -14) Petitioner and respondent had an arbitration clause agreement - leading to a dispute - led to formation of an Arbitral Tribunal - Arbitrator awarded respondent two directions - reinstatement of dealership and Rs.50,000/- as monthly costs - from termination date to restoration date - respondent filed two execution applications before Commercial Court, Lucknow - objecting on grounds of inherent jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction - petitioner's objections were negated by two separate impugned orders - challenge of order through present applications. (Para - 4) HELD:- The Commercial Court, under The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, had jurisdiction over the execution proceedings arising from an award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Court do not find any reason to interfere with orders of Commercial Court at Lucknow, which rejected petitioner's objections. (Para -19) Petition dismissed. (E-7) LIST OF CASES CITED:- ## Text 10 All. Sangeeta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 395 lower court be returned to the trial court forthwith. 44. After the judgement and order was dictated in open Court, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that they may be considered for remission. In this regard, we are not inclined to express any opinion on the question of remission and leave it open for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to avail remission in accordance with law and if permissible under law. ---------- (2023) 10 ILRA 395 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 10.10.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J. THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. Public Interest Litigation No. 908 of 2023 Sangeeta & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Arvind Yadav, Pragya Pandey Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta A. Civil Law-The grievance raised in the present PIL is confined to the construction of a public pathway which according to the petitioners has not been laid to facilitate the smooth and safe movement of villagers as well as livestock and complaint for water logging issues - Held-all the issues are the subject matter of the development schemes which are floated for the betterment of villages-Any interlocking material or slabs used for the construction of public pathway should not leave grooves or spaces tending to cause damage to the hooves of animals or villagers walking most of the time bare footed in dark night-The petitioners is to take up their grievance before the District Magistrate as well as District Panchayat Raj Officer concerned.(Para 1 to 5) The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6) (Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, C.J. & Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.6- Gram Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for Staterespondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. The grievance raised in the present P.I.L. is confined to the construction of a public pathway which according to the petitioners has not been laid to facilitate the smooth and safe movement of the villagers as well as the livestock. Moreover, there is a complaint of water logging as well. 3. All such issues are the subject matter of developmental schemes which are floated for the betterment of villages. A public pathway regarding which the grievance is raised, is bound to be shaped in a way so that its utility for the public as well as the livestock becomes congenial. Any interlocking material or slabs used for the construction of public pathway should not leave grooves or spaces tending to cause damage to the hooves of animals or the villagers walking most of the time bare footed in dark night. The aspect must be viewed seriously by the Gram Panchayat as well as 396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the district authorities while implementing the projects of laying public pathways. 4. We leave it open to the petitioners to take up their grievance before the District Magistrate as well as District Panchayat Raj Officer concerned and in case, any such representation is made pointing out the defects, the same shall be looked into and appropriate measures be taken in this regard at the earliest, failing which, the petitioners shall have liberty to make an application in the present writ petition for further directions, if necessary. 5. With the observations as above, the instant P.I.L. is disposed of. 6. Let a copy of this order be circulated to all the District Magistrates, Zila Panchayats and development authorities and Gram Panchayats. ---------- (2023) 10 ILRA 396 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 18.10.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. Matters Under Article 227 No. 2704 of 2023 And Matters Under Article 227 No. 2703 of 2023 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai ...Petitioner Versus Anoop Kumar Modi ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: SM Singh Royekwar Counsel for the Respondent: Girish Chandra Sinha A) The Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 32 - Termination of proceedings, Section 36 - enforcement of arbitral awards, The Commercial Courts' Act, 2015 - Section 3 - constitution of Commercial Courts, Section 10(3) - Jurisdiction in respect of arbitration matters, Section 16 - Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application to commercial disputes - enforcement of an award through its execution can be initiated anywhere in the country where the decree can be executed and there is no requirement of obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. (Para -14) Petitioner and respondent had an arbitration clause agreement - leading to a dispute - led to formation of an Arbitral Tribunal - Arbitrator awarded respondent two directions - reinstatement of dealership and Rs.50,000/- as monthly costs - from termination date to restoration date - respondent filed two execution applications before Commercial Court, Lucknow - objecting on grounds of inherent jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction - petitioner's objections were negated by two separate impugned orders - challenge of order through present applications. (Para - 4) HELD:- The Commercial Court, under The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, had jurisdiction over the execution proceedings arising from an award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Court do not find any reason to interfere with orders of Commercial Court at Lucknow, which rejected petitioner's objections. (Para -19) Petition dismissed. (E-7) LIST OF CASES CITED:- 1. Beta Exim Logistics (P) Ltd. Vs C.R.W. Co., Ltd., 2023 SCC Online Ker 1392 2. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs Abdul Samad & anr. , (2018) 3 SCC 622 3. St. of W.B. Vs Associated Contractors. , (2015) 1 SCC 32 4. Cheran Properties Ltd. Vs Kasturi & sons ltd. ,AIRONLINE 2018 SC 1229