IRON TRIANGLE LIMITED vs M/S. SACHI GEOSYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/12396/2026 (GJHC240630492026) JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12396 of 2026
==============================================================
IRON TRIANGLE LIMITED
Versus
M/S. SACHI GEOSYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED
==============================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH R. BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR MUNJAAL M
BHATT(8283) for the Petitioner(s) No.1
MR ARMAN ROOP SHARMA WITH MS SHELLY KHURANA WITH MR NAMAN
VERMA WITH MS RUCHIKA SONI WITH MR NARENDRA RANAMALJI
MADHU(13497) for the Respondent No.1
==============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 10/09/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. Heard Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Munjal M. Bhatt, learned advocate for
the petitioner and Mr. Arman Roop Sharma, learned
advocate for the respondent and perused the record.
2. This petition, invoking jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
has been filed challenging the judgment and order
dated 29.06.2026 passed by the Spl. Judge, Commercial
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Sep 14 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 14 17:42:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/12396/2026 (GJHC240630492026) JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2026
Court & 6th Additional District Judge, Rajkot in
rejecting application under Section 36 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 vide Exhibit
5, whereby the petitioner herein sought for stay of
the operation of the arbitral award.
3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner that the application under Section
34 of the Act, 1996 was filed in the year 2023
accompanying an application under Section 36(3)
seeking for stay of the operation of the arbitral
award. As the arbitral award was passed by the MSME
Council, in view of Section 19 of the MSME Act, 2006,
75% of the awarded amount, in terms of the award, has
been deposited to maintain the application under
Section 34 of the Act, 1996 read with Section 19 of
the MSME Act, 2006. The petitioner, thus, sought stay
of the operation of the arbitral award to the extent
of the remaining 25% of the awarded amount only.
4. The submission is that even the question before
the Court under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 is about
the maintainability of the proceeding before the MSME
Council, inasmuch as, one of the grounds of challenge
to the MSME award is that the ‘works contract’ do not
fall within the scope of jurisdiction of MSME Council
under the MSMED Act, 2006. The further submission is
that the Commercial Court, while dealing with the
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Sep 14 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 14 17:42:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/12396/2026 (GJHC240630492026) JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2026
application under Section 36(3) of the Act, 1996,
which was an interim application, has virtually dealt
with the merits of the case of the petitioner in the
application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, which
causes serious prejudice to the petitioner in
pursuing the pending application under Section 34.
5. Dealing with all these submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioner, suffice it to
note that, as recorded in paragraph 31 of the
judgment impugned dated 29.06.2026, learned advocate
appearing for the decree holder had shown his
readiness and willingness to argue the application
under Section 34, and also stated that due to the
pendency of the application under Section 34, he does
not wish to proceed with any other proceedings in the
execution petition. It is also noted by the
Commercial Court in paragraph ‘31’ of the judgment
impugned that the decree holder even had not filed
any application for withdrawal of 75% of the amount
deposited by the award debtor, namely the petitioner
herein.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
would submit that after the impugned judgment dated
29.06.2026 has been rendered, an application for
withdrawal of the deposited amount has been moved by
the decree holder, which is pending as on date.
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Sep 14 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 14 17:42:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/12396/2026 (GJHC240630492026) JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2026
7. At this stage, Mr. Arman Roop Sharma, learned
advocate for the respondent would submit that the
respondent decree holder is ready and willing to
argue the application under Section 34 of the Act,
1996 and would not pursue the application for
withdrawal of the deposited amount. It was submitted
that even on the date when the matter was argued on
the interim application under Section 36(3) of the
Act, 1996, the learned advocate appearing for the
decree holder had requested to the Court to hear the
application under Section 34 itself on merits.
8. Both the learned counsels appearing for the
parties, thus, are ad idem on the early disposal of
the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996,
and there is no assertion on the part of the decree
holder to seek execution of the award during the
pendency of the application under Section 34 of the
Act, 1996.
9. It is also intimated by the learned counsel for
the respondent that 29.09.2026 is the date fixed for
hearing of the application under Section 34 before
the Commercial Court concerned.
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Sep 14 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 14 17:42:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/12396/2026 (GJHC240630492026) JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2026
10. In view of the above, without entering into the
merits of the rival claims of the parties, the
present petition stands disposed of with the
direction to the Commercial Court concerned to make
an endeavour to conduct the hearing of the
application under Section 34 on the date fixed itself
or by fixing another date within a period of two
weeks from the said date fixed. In any case, the
hearing on Section 34 application shall be conducted
in a time-bound manner and an endeavour be made to
decide the same, as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of six weeks from the date
fixed i.e. 29.09.2026, by providing due opportunity
of hearing to both the parties.
11. The learned advocates appearing for the parties
before the Commercial Court shall cooperate in the
early disposal of the application under Section 34,
and in case of any unnecessary adjournment on their
part, it would be open for the Court to proceed ex
parte .
12. It is further made clear that any observations
made in the impugned judgment and order dated
29.06.2026 on the merits of the case of the parties
shall be treated as having been made for the sole
purpose of decision on the application under Section
36(3) of the Act, 1996, and the Court shall not be
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Sep 14 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 14 17:42:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/12396/2026 (GJHC240630492026) JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2026
guided by any of them during the course of disposal
of the application under Section 34 on merits.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Mon Sep 14 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 14 17:42:31 IST 2026