Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Transmission Corporation Of Andhra … vs Haryana Micro And Small Enterprises … on 12 March, 2026
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10420-10421 OF 2024
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF
ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED (A.P. TRANSCO) Appellant(s)
VERSUS
HARYANA MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES
FACILITATION COUNCIL & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. These appeals are against the judgment and order dated
08.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati
in Writ Petition Nos. 34399 and 34412 of 2018.
2. A conspectus of the facts of the case, relevant for disposing
of the present appeals, are as follows.
3. On the basis of the contract, the appellant on 25.05.1998
sought supply of certain conductors from respondent no.2. Certain
dispute arose out of the contract and hence the matter was referred
to arbitration. Arbitration in question was undertaken under the
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“the
MSME Act“) by the Haryana Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation
Council (hereinafter, Facilitation Council) and two awards dated
21.06.2010 came to be passed partly allowing the claims. The
appellant challenged the award(s) by filing two applications under
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the
Date: 2026.03.17
16:22:01 IST
Reason:
Arbitration Act“). By its orders dated 28.08.20214 and 29.08.2014,
1
the challenge was repelled by the ADJ, Chandigarh and the appeal
under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act met the same fate. Even the
Special Leave Petition filed against the order passed by the Punjab
and Haryana High Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act came
to be dismissed on 30.07.2018.
4. The respondent no. 2 adopted two distinctive modes in order to
seek execution of the award(s). Firstly, by moving an application
under Section 17(1)(ii)(e) of the Arbitration Act before the
Facilitation Council seeking securement of the amount payable under
the claims and also for determining the exact award(s) amount.
Though the said application came to be dismissed on 06.09.2017, on
review the Council took up the application and passed orders on
11.07.2018 directing as under:
“Case No. 3
The Council had ordered on 21.06.2010 that
claim of the supplier is maintainable as per
the rate of interest and dates mentioned qua
bills mentioned at Sr. No. 58-82 of the
Annexure AW-1, to the actual date of payment
with compounding as per provision of the Act 34
of 1993. The Council observed that now the
Arbitration Case No. 579 of 19.10.2010 filed by
the buyer has been dismissed by the District
Court, Chandigarh vide order dated 17.04.2018
in respect of the above award passed by the
Council regarding the bills at Sr. No. 58-92
and subsequently, the Hon’ble High Court vide
order dated 18.05.2018 and Hon’ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 06.06.2018 have also
dismissed the petition filed by the buyer and
the matter has attained finality. The Council
further observed that the Amendment under
Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
(Amendment) Act, 2015 is applicable with
retrospective effect in view of the Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court order ‘dated 02.03.2016,
which was not referred by the supplier in his
submissions made in previous application
29.05.2017. Therefore, the provision made under
Section 17(ii)(0) read with Section 17 (ii)(e)
2
of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment)
Act, 2015 applies to the payment pending
towards the buyer. Accordingly, the Council
secures the interest amount of Rs.
5,90,86,059/- till 30.06.2018 and with future
interest till realization in accordance with
provisions of Act 32 of 1993. Further, the
council unanimously decided that the Respondent
M/s. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh
Limited (APTRANSCO) is restrained and
prohibited from receiving payments from
Garnishees at Schedule A, Serial No. 1 to 4 and
garnishees are hereby restricted to make
payment to the Respondent M/s. Transmission
Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited
(APTRANSCO) to the extent of decree amount of
Rs. 5,90,86,059 (for Bill No. 58-82 as per
Annexure AW-1 of the award dated 21.06.2010)
till 30.06.2018 and pay the same to the decree
holder M/s. Equipment Conductors and Cables
Limited through Execution Court forthwith in
satisfaction of the arbitral award. The amount
of Rs. 20,54,754/- ‘deposited by the buyer in
the District Court, Chandigarh shall be reduced
in discharging the award liability.
Case No. 7
The Council had ordered on 21.06.2010 that
claim of the supplier is maintainable as per
the rate of interest and dates mentioned qua
bills mentioned at Sr. No. 26-45 of the
Annexure AW-1, to the actual date of payment
with compounding as per provision of the Act 34
of 1993. The Council observed that now the
Arbitration Case No. 580 of 19.10.2010 filed by
the buyer has been dismissed by the District
Court, Chandigarh vide order dated 17.04.2018
in respect of the above award passed by the
Council regarding the bills at Sr. No. 26-45
and subsequently, the Hon’ble High Court vide
order dated 18.05.2018 and Hon’ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 06.06.2018 have also
dismissed the petition filed by the buyer and
the matter has attained finality. The Council
further observed that the Amendment under
Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
(Amendment) Act, 2015 is applicable with
retrospective effect in view of the Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court order dated 02.03.2016,
which was not referred by the supplier in his
submissions made in previous application
29.05.2017. Therefore, the provision made under
Section 17(ii)(b) read with Section 17 (ii)(e)
3
of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment)
Act, 2015 applies to the payment pending
towards the buyer. Accordingly, the Council
secures the interest amount of Rs.
6,08,99,870/- till 30.06.2018 and with future
interest till realization in accordance with
provisions of Act 32 of 1993. Further, the
council unanimously decided that the Respondent
M/s. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh
Limited (APTRANSCO) is restrained and
prohibited from receiving payments from
Garnishees at Schedule A, Serial No. 1 to 4 and
garnishees are hereby restricted to make
payment to the Respondent M/s. Transmission
Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited
(APTRANSCO) to the extent of decree amount of
Rs. 5,90,86,059 (for Bill No. 26-45 as per
Annexure AW-1 of the award dated 21.06.2010)
till 30.06.2018 and pay the same to the decree
holder M/s. Equipment Conductors and Cables
Limited through Execution Court forthwith in
satisfaction of the arbitral award. The amount
of Rs. 24,50,046/- deposited by the buyer in
the District Court, Chandigarh shall be reduced
in discharging the award liability.”
5. Questioning the legality and validity of the above order, the
appellant filed two Writ Petitions before the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh. We will return to these proceedings after reference to
some other events that have transpired in the meanwhile.
6. As indicated earlier, respondent no. 2 also filed Execution
Petitions, being Execution Petition Nos 1512 and 1513 of 2018
before the Commercial Court, Vijayawada seeking execution of the
awards that have attained finality. The Execution Petitions came to
be dismissed by the Commercial Court on 12.10.2020 for the
following reasons;
“Execution Petition Nos 1512 of 2018
10) Point No.(3): The D.Hr filed the Execution
Petition claiming a sum of Rs.5,75,33,970/-
with future interest and costs. The contention
of the D.Hr from the beginning was that he was
entitled for compound rate of interest at 18%
4
p.a., on the amount shown in the Annexure AW-1
attached to the Award. The contention of the
J.Dr was that the J.Dr was liable to pay the
amount mentioned in the Annexure AW1, which was
subsequently calculated and determined by the
Additional District Judge, Chandigarh while
deciding an application under Section 19 of
MSMED Act, 2006.
The J.Dr took a clear stand in his counter as
if the J.Dr discharged total decretal amount
and was not liable to pay any amount.
10.2) During the pendency of this Execution
Petition, the J.Dr filed an application vide
C.E.A.No.1/2020 to reject C.E.P.No.1/2020 on
the ground that the amount due under the Award
was discharged and the award was satisfied. The
parties to C.E.A.No.1/2020 let their evidence,
and they also produced all the documents
including the Award, the judgment passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh
while deciding the petition under Section 34 of
the Act No.26 of 1996 and other consequential
orders. This Court, after considering the
language used in the award, the findings
recorded by the Additional District Judge,
Chandigarh in Arbitration Case No.579/10 in the
light of the directions given by the Hon’ble
High Court of Punjab & Haryana and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India came to conclusion that
the J.Dr was liable to pay a sum of Rs.
1,02,664/- only. The J.Dr contended that he
paid excessive amount of Rs. Rs. 44,995/- in
the Award subject matter of C.E.P.No.2 of 2020
and there was balance of Rs.57,669/-. But, the
D.Hr examined PW.1 Alok Sharma and filed chief
affidavit narrating the same facts as stated
in C.E.A.No. 1/2020 and claiming a sum of
Rs.7,79,30,376/- as on 31-07-2020. He also
sought the future interest from 31.07.2020 till
the date of payment/realization
10.3) This Court after considering the total
evidence oral and documentary, came to
conclusion that the J.Dr was liable to pay a
sum of Rs.1,02,664/- only, but not the amount
mentioned in the chief affidavit of PW1 Alok
Sharma or in the detailed calculation memo by
bill-wise. Hence, I cannot come to conclusion
that the calculations made by the D.Hr are true
and correct. I safely concluded that the J.Dr
was liable to pay only a sum of Rs.1,02,664/-
only subject to adjustments according to law as
5
decided in C.E.A.No. 1/2020. This point is
answered accordingly.
…
…
11.7) In my humble view, the failure to pay the
decretal amount by the Government or a
Government Company cannot be regarded as
refusal or the negligence on behalf of a public
servant holding the post in Government or
Government Company. So, when the Government or
the Government Company is Judgment Debtor, the
D.Hr may execute the decree against the
property of the Government or the Government
Company, but not against the public servant
holding any post in the Government or
Government Company, otherwise, one public
servant may be arrested for the negligence or
refusal on the part of the other public
servant, as argued by the learned counsel for
the J.Dr. So, in my considerable view, an
Execution Petition for arrest and detention of
the Chairman and Managing Director or other
Directors of the J.Dr is not maintainable,
especially when there is no pleading and
evidence on record that any particular Chairman
and Managing Director or other Directors
representing the J.Dr intentionally refused or
neglected to pay the decretal amount. As such,
the Execution Petition is liable to be
dismissed on this point alone. This point is
answered accordingly.
12) In the result, the Execution Petition is
dismissed. No costs.”
Execution Petition Nos 1513 of 2018
10) Point No.(3): The D.Hr filed the Execution
Petition claiming a sum of Rs. 5,90,82,703/-
with future interest and costs. The contention
of the D.Hr from the beginning was that he was
entitled for compound rate of interest at 18%
p.a., on the amount shown in the Annexure AW-1
attached to the Award. The contention of the
J.Dr was that the J.Dr was liable to pay the
amount mentioned in the Annexure AW1, which was
subsequently calculated and determined by the
Additional District Judge, Chandigarh while
deciding an application under Section 19 of
MSMED Act, 2006. The J.Dr took a clear stand in
his counter as if the J.Dr discharged total
6
decretal amount and was not liable to pay any
amount.
10.2) During the pendency of the Execution
Petition, the J.Dr filed an application vide
C.E.A.No.5/2020 to reject C.E.P.No.2/2020 on
the ground that the amount due under the award
was discharged and the award was set aside. The
parties to CEA No.5/2020 let their evidence,
and they also produced all the documents
including the Award, the judgment passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh
while deciding the petition under Section 34 of
the Act No.26 of 1996 and other consequential
orders. This Court, after considering the
language used in the Award, the findings
recorded by the Additional District Judge,
Chandigarh in Arbitration Case No.580/10 in the
light of the directions given by the Hon’ble
High Court of Punjab & Haryana and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India came to conclusion that
the J.Dr was liable to pay a sum of
Rs.24,50,046/-only. The J.Dr contended that he
deposited a sum of Rs.16,81,964/-,
Rs.1,35,203/-, Rs.6,57,506/- and Rs.20,368/-, a
total sum of Rs.24,95,041/- and there was
excess amount of Rs.44,995/-. But, the D.Hr
examined PW.1 Alok Sharma and filed chief
affidavit narrating the same facts as stated in
C.E.A.No.5/2020 and claiming a sum of
Rs.8,01,33,556/- as on 14.08.2020. He also
sought the future interest till the date of
payment/ realization. In the evidence for D.Hr
by PW1 Alok Sharma, he admitted that the
petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 18,17,167/-
towards the satisfaction of the Award under
execution in C.E.P.No.2 of 2020. He denied a
suggestion that the petitioner deposited a sum
of Rs.24,95,041/-. As I earlier mentioned the
J.Dr contended that he deposited excess amount
of Rs.44,995/- under the Award in execution in
C.E.P.No.2 of 2020. If so, the J.Dr can go for
adjustment or recovery of the same according to
Law. The same is matter of verification of
deposits or payments, and calculation.
10.3) This Court after considering the total
evidence oral and documentary, came to
conclusion that the J.Dr was liable to pay a
sum of Rs.24,50,046/- only, but not the amount
mentioned in the chief affidavit of PWI – Alok
Sharma or in the detailed calculation memo by
bill-wise. Hence, I cannot come to conclusion
that the calculations made by the D.Hr are true
7
and correct. I safely concluded that the J.Dr
was liable to pay only a sum of Rs. 24,50,046/-
as decided in C.E.A.No.5/2020. After
verification of the deposits, the adjustments
shall be made or the J.Dr shall recover the
excessive amount if any according to law. This
point is ‘answered accordingly.
…
…
11.7) In my humble view, the failure to pay the
decretal amount by the Govemment or a
Government Company cannot be regarded as
refusal or the negligence on behalf of a public
servant holding the post in Government or
Government Company. So, when the Government or
the Government Company is Judgment Debtor, the
D.Hr may execute the decree against the
property of the Government or the Government
Company, but not against the public servant
holding any post in the Government or
Government Company, otherwise, one public
servant may be arrested for the negligence or
refusal on the part of the other public
servant, as argued by the learned counsel for
the J.Dr. So, in my considerable view, an
Execution Petition for arrest and detention of
the Chairman and Managing Director or other
Directors of the J.Dr is not maintainable,
especially when there is no pleading and
evidence on record that any particular Chairman
and Managing Director or other Directors
representing the J.Dr intentionally refused or
neglected to pay the decretal amount. As such,
the Execution Petition is liable to be
dismissed on this point alone.
This point is answered accordingly.
In the result, the Execution Petition is
dismissed. No costs.”
7. The respondent no. 2 challenged the orders passed by the
Executing Court by filing three Civil Revision Petitions being CRP
No. 74, 197 and 220 of 2021 which are said to have been pending
before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
8. Returning to the Writ Petitions filed by the appellant against
8
the order passed by the Facilitation Council on 11.07.2018, being
WP No. 34399 and 34412 of 2018, it may be indicated that the
appellant questioned the order on the ground that the Facilitation
Council had become functus officio after passing of the award(s).
It was also argued that the Facilitation Council could not have
entertained Review Petition(s) against its order dated 06.09.2017.
9. The High Court considered the matter in detail and came to the
conclusion that the order dated 11.07.2018 was passed without
giving an opportunity to the appellant. In other words, the Writ
Petitions were allowed on the ground that the principles of natural
justice has been violated. In this view of the matter, the High
Court merely remanded the case to the Facilitation Council for
disposal after hearing both the parties.
10. Heard Mr. Nakul Dewan, learned senior counsel for the
appellant, assisted by Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma. Mr. Dewan would submit
that having found that Facilitation Council does not have
jurisdiction, there is no justification whatsoever for the High
Court to remand the matters back to the Facilitation Council. We
also heard Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, learned counsel for the
respondents.
11. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion
that the respondent no.2 is seeking nothing more than execution of
the award(s) that have attained finality. The actual amount that
needs to be paid could be determined either on the basis of
award(s) dated 21.06.2010 or on the basis of the calculations made
in the order dated 11.07.2018. However, since such Execution
Petitions came to be dismissed and revisions against those orders
9
are pending before the High Court, we deem it appropriate to
restore the Writ Petitions challenging the order dated 11.07.2018
and direct them to be heard along with Civil Revision Petitions for
common adjudication and determination. By this process, we are of
the opinion that there could be a joint hearing in the civil
revisions as well as the Writ Petitions, when issues in both the
proceedings are similar arising from the same award(s) and between
the same parties. This process of adjudication will also avoid the
possibility of conflicting orders, apart from ensuring expeditious
disposal. Parties are at liberty to raise and contest all issues of
law and fact that may be permissible in law.
12. In view of the above discussion, we allow the appeals, set
aside the order(s) of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 34399 and
34412 of 2018 dated 08.09.2022 and direct that the Writ Petitions
being Writ Petition No. 34399 and 34412 of 2018 will be taken up
with CRP Nos. 74, 197 and 220 of 2021 and disposed of in accordance
with law. In view of the long pendency, we request the High Court
to endeavour to dispose of the cases expeditiously, preferably
within a period of 4 months from today.
13. With these observations, the appeals are allowed.
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 12, 2026
10
ITEM NO.111 COURT NO.6 SECTION III-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 10420-10421/2024
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA
PRADESH LIMITED (A.P. TRANSCO) Appellant(s)
VERSUS
HARYANA MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES
FACILITATION COUNCIL & ORS. Respondent(s)
[ RETAIN ITS POSITION ]
IA No. 316385/2025 – EARLY HEARING APPLICATION
Date : 12-03-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
Ms. Adviteeya, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, AOR
Mr. Aditya Mani Saran, Adv.
Mr. Sidhant Sharma, Adv.
Dr. Monika Gusain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR
Ms. S. Harini, Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Mayur Goyal, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR
Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv.
Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Adv.
Ms. Santha Smruthi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The Civil Appeals are allowed in terms of the Signed Order.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KAPIL TANDON) (NIDHI WASON)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSTT. REGISTRAR(NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)
11