The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.10197 of 2024 Rail India Technical & Economic Services Ltd. (RITES), Bhubaneswar …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Bhabani Sankar Tripathy (1), Adv. -versus- Prabhat Kumar Mishra …. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Nilakantha Judharsingh, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI Order No.
Decision
ORDER 26.08.2025 08. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner-Company being represented through its P.U. Head has challenged the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar in Execution Case No.200 of 2023 vide Annexure-7. 3. Heard. 4. Factual scenario of the case so also the submissions made on behalf of both the parties in brevity remain:- (i) Pursuant to the work order issued by the Petitioner- Company for the work “Track linking works in MGR and permanent Siding of NTPC/TSTPP” the Opposite Party submitted his bid. The said work order was for a sum of Rs.9,83,600/-. As per the terms and conditions, the said work Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Sep-2025 18:25:06 was required to be completed within two months from the date of its starting and the date of completion was fixed to 17.06.1996. (ii) Though the Opposite Party completed the said work beyond the due time i.e. on 20.07.1997, he was paid final bill amount on 22.09.1998 without any objection. Despite payment of the final bill amount, the Opposite Party relying on the provision at Clause 56 of the CGC raised a dispute vide Notice dated 26.10.1998 before the C.M.D, NTPC for appointment of Arbitrator. Since there was no response on the said notice of the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party had approached this Court through MJC No.442 of 1998. On hearing the said M.J.C, this Court vide order dated 18.09.2001 had appointed a sole Arbitrator (a retired Judge of this Court) for deciding the dispute between the parties amicably. (iii) Upon hearing the parties concerned and looking to the documents submitted by both the parties, the learned sole Arbitrator dismissed the claim of the Opposite Party by passing a NIL Award vide award dated 28.08.2003. Being aggrieved by the said NIL Award dated 28.08.2003 the Opposite Party-claimant preferred an Arbitration Petition vide ARBP No.6 of 2004 before the Court of learned District Judge, Khurda which was dismissed on contest vide judgment dated 19.07.2012. Thereafter, the Opposite Party preferred an appeal vide ARBA No.33 of 2012 which was Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Sep-2025 18:25:06 disposed of vide order dated 28.06.2019 by setting aside the award of the learned Arbitrator including the order dated 19.07.2012 passed in the above noted ARBP. In view of allowing of the above noted Arbitration Appeal (ARBA), the Arbitration Proceeding was restored. Since the Arbitrator who passed the NIL award dated 28.08.2003, had died at the time of passing of the order dated 28.06.2019, the Opposite Party-claimant was permitted to file an appropriate application for appointment of a fresh Arbitrator to resolve the dispute afresh. On getting such permission the Opposite Party-Claimant filed ARBP No.69 of 2019 which was disposed of by appointing another arbitrator named Mr. S.K. Ray, District Judge (Retired). Accordingly, the case was registered as Arbitration Proceeding No.64 of 2021. (iv) Upon hearing both the parties and looking to the averments made in ARBP No.64 of 2021 the learned Arbitrator passed the impugned award on 21.10.2022 and thereafter, the modified award dated 11.11.2022 which orders are alleged to have been passed by ignoring the facts involved in this matter. (v) At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that being aggrieved by the said orders of the learned Arbitrator though the Petitioners filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned Commercial Court, Cuttack vide ARBP No.2 of 2023, during pendency of the said Arbitration Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Sep-2025 18:25:06 Proceeding vide ARBP No.2 of 2023 the Opposite Party filed an Execution Petition bearing No.200 of 2023 before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar for enforcement of the awards dated 21.10.2022 and dated 11.11.2022. (vi) Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that during pendency of the case at the instance of the Petitioner vide ARBP No.2 of 2023 before the learned Commercial Court, Cuttack, the learned Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar passed the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 in the above noted Execution Case. (vi) He, in the process, contends that since the Petitioner has challenged the awards dated 21.10.2022 and dated 11.11.2022 by filing ARBP No.2 of 2023, the learned Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar should not have passed the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 pertaining to the issue of enforcement of the said awards. He also contends that since both the proceedings arise out of one issue, the said proceedings should be heard by one authority for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute involved herein. (vii) He also relies on two decisions in support of the case of the Petitioner. One is in the case of UCO Bank, Sambalpur Vrs. Sangram Keshari Khuntia1 and the other one is in the case of Electrosteel Steel Ltd. Vrs. Ispat Carrier Pvt. Ltd. 2. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Sep-2025 18:25:06 1 W.P.(C) No.17320 of 2023 (Disposed of on 16.05.2025) 2 Civil Appeal No.2896 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (C) No.15823 of 2023) Page 4 of 6 He, accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer made in this Writ Petition. (viii) In his opposition, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-claimant submits that despite completion of the above noted work since 1997 the Opposite Party-claimant is still awaiting to get the benefit. He further contends that in the meantime, more than two decades have already passed. He also submits that the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 has been passed after providing fullest opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 5. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the Parties and looking to the factual scenario of the case, this Court is of the view that since the Petitioner has filed a petition vide ARBP No.2 of 2023 challenging the awards dated 21.10.2022 and dated 11.11.2022, the learned Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar should not have passed the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 in the above noted Execution Case which was filed for enforcement of the said awards. This Court is also of the view that since both the proceedings arise out of one issue, the said proceedings, in the interest of justice, should be heard by one authority. At this juncture, on the query of this Court, both the parties agreed for hearing of both the matters at one Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Sep-2025 18:25:06 place. Page 5 of 6 6. In such view of the matter, this Court while setting aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 passed in Execution Case No.200 of 2023 directs that the Execution Case No.200 of 2023 shall be transmitted to the learned Commercial Court, Cuttack within a period of fifteen working days from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this order. This Court, in the process, directs the learned Commercial Court, Cuttack for concluding both the proceedings vide ARBP No.2 of 2023 and Execution Case No.200 of 2023 in accordance with law. 7. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge Ayaskanta (Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Sep-2025 18:25:06 Page 6 of 6