M/S TAPI PRESTRESSED PRODUCTS LTD vs GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHW DIVISION PRBANDAR Advocate - K S PATEL — 12/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O21. Disposed: Contested--DECREE SATISFIED on 18th April 2026.
COMM EX - COMMERCIAL EXECUTION
CNR: GJGN010038162025
Filing Number
12/2025
Filing Date
10-10-2025
Registration No
12/2025
Registration Date
10-10-2025
Court
DISTRICT COURT, GANDHINAGAR
Judge
3-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
18th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREE SATISFIED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/S TAPI PRESTRESSED PRODUCTS LTD
Adv. K G SUKHWANI
Respondent(s)
GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHW DIVISION PRBANDAR Advocate - K S PATEL
Hearing History
Judge: 3-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
HEARING
PROCESS OF EXECUTION
PROCESS OF EXECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-04-2026 | ORDER |
| 02-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 13-03-2026 | PROCESS OF EXECUTION |
| 12-03-2026 | PROCESS OF EXECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court allowed M/s Tapi Prestressed Products Ltd. to withdraw Rs.16,08,89,248.87 deposited by Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board against an arbitral award of Rs.9,87,08,383, while requiring the decree holder to furnish an equal bank guarantee pending the judgment debtor's Section 34 challenge. The court balanced both parties' interests by noting that mere filing of a Section 34 application doesn't suspend the award's enforceability without a stay order, but conditioned withdrawal on the guarantee to protect restitution if the debtor succeeds in appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court allowed M/s Tapi Prestressed Products Ltd. to withdraw Rs.16,08,89,248.87 deposited by Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board against an arbitral award of Rs.9,87,08,383, while requiring the decree holder to furnish an equal bank guarantee pending the judgment debtor's Section 34 challenge. The court balanced both parties' interests by noting that mere filing of a Section 34 application doesn't suspend the award's enforceability without a stay order, but conditioned withdrawal on the guarantee to protect restitution if the debtor succeeds in appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts