Execution Case No. 186 of 2023 · Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21367 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). M/s KCS Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar …. Petitioner(s) -versus- M/s MECON Ltd., Jharkhand …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Suvendu Kumar Ray, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv. Along with Associates Mr. Tanmoy Mishra, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-16.09.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the order dated 01.07.2025 of the Commercial Court, Ranchi restraining release of the attached amount, and to direct the Commercial Court, Cuttack to issue warrant of attachment and disburse the decretal sum in Execution Case No. 186 of 2023. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (i) Opposite party no. 1, MECON Ltd., floated a Notice Inviting Tender dated 09.10.2009 (Invitation to Tender No. 11.41.A22PIERNR/Pkg No. 587521047) for erection, testing and commissioning of mechanical plant and equipment, refractory, buildings, technological structures, piping, unloading, storage, transportation of material at site, and supply of auxiliary materials and CGI sheeting for a 7M tall new Coke Oven Battery No. 6 at Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela; the petitioner, M/s KCS Pvt. Ltd., formed a consortium with M/s Rosy Enterprises, submitted its bid, and was issued an item-rate work order on 14.01.2010 with tentative quantities indicated and erection rates quoted against those quantities, the completion schedule being milestone-based and linked to handing over of the Nozzle Deck under Clause 4.0. (ii) During execution of the work, disputes arose within the consortium and between the contractor and MECON; the petitioner issued a letter dated 29.12.2011 advising its consortium partner M/s Rosy Enterprises to stop completion of the balance work and, by a further letter dated 23.02.2012, communicated its decision to withdraw from its earlier commitment, following which MECON convened a meeting on 30.04.2012 with the petitioner and M/s Rosy Enterprises to discuss modalities of payment and amicable settlement, and subsequently entrusted the balance work to M/s Rosy Enterprises alone, which was jointly liable with the petitioner under the consortium arrangement. (iii) The contract contained an arbitration clause under which disputes were referred to arbitration; on 02.09.2015 the petitioner invoked the Page 2 of 21
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by filing an arbitration case, and in ARBP No. 20 of 2015 the High Court of Orissa, by order dated 11.01.2019, appointed Retired Hon’ble Justice Tapen Sen as sole Arbitrator, who conducted the arbitral proceedings (seated at Ranchi) and on 26.03.2023 passed an arbitral award in favour of the petitioner. (iv) The arbitration agreement is stated to contain a jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on courts at Ranchi; after the award dated 26.03.2023, MECON filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 24.06.2023 before the Commercial Court, Ranchi (registered as Commercial Arbitration Case No. 13 of 2023) seeking to set aside the award, while on 03.07.2023 the petitioner, as decree-holder, instituted Execution Case No. 186 of 2023 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-cum-Commercial Court, Cuttack under Order XXI read with Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for realization of the decretal amount. (v) In the Section 34 proceedings at Ranchi, the petitioner entered appearance and raised a jurisdictional objection contending that the Ranchi Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction; by order dated 30.11.2023, the Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Ranchi upheld this objection and held that the Ranchi Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 application and declined to proceed with the petition, whereafter MECON filed Commercial Appeal No. 1 of 2023 before the High Court of Jharkhand, which was dismissed as withdrawn. Page 3 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (vi) MECON then approached the High Court of Jharkhand by filing CMP No. 415 of 2024 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution; by order dated 04.02.2025, the learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court held that the Commercial Court, Ranchi had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 petition, restored MECON’s Section 34 application to the file of the Ranchi Commercial Court, and directed that it proceed and decide the matter in accordance with law, and the petitioner has been participating in the restored Section 34 proceedings without disputing their pendency. (vii) In Execution Case No. 186 of 2023 at Cuttack, repeated notices were issued to MECON, which did not appear, resulting in MECON being set ex parte; on an application by the petitioner for realization of the decretal sum of Rs. 3,39,63,581.08 from funds lying in Union Bank of India, Shyamali Colony Branch, Ranchi (IFSC UBIN0548014), the Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-cum-Commercial Court, Cuttack, by order dated 25.11.2024, directed attachment of the said bank account and restrained the bank from releasing the attached amount till further orders, and MECON thereafter filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC before the Cuttack Court seeking recall of the ex parte order, which remains pending, while no warrant of attachment has yet been issued to the bank. (viii) MECON asserts that it has no bank account or property within the territorial jurisdiction of the Cuttack Commercial Court and that both the award and the bank account in question are situated at Ranchi, Page 4 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 whereas the petitioner proceeds on the basis that, in view of the award and the settled legal position on execution of arbitral awards, Execution Case No. 186 of 2023 at Cuttack is maintainable for realization of the decretal amount from MECON’s Ranchi bank account. (ix) In Commercial Arbitration Case No. 13 of 2023 at Ranchi, MECON filed an application under Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking stay of enforcement of the arbitral award; the petitioner appeared, filed objections, and submitted written notes of argument on 29.04.2025 contending, inter alia, that any stay of a money award must conform to provisions governing stay of money decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure. (x) On 01.07.2025, while deciding the Section 36(2) application, the Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Ranchi passed an order in Commercial Arbitration Case No. 13 of 2023 directing the executing court, namely the Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-cum-Commercial Court, Cuttack, not to release the attached amount lying in MECON’s Union Bank of India account until further orders, and this order did not expressly advert to the earlier attachment order dated 25.11.2024 passed in Execution Case No. 186 of 2023 by the Cuttack Commercial Court. (xi) On 28.07.2025, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this High Court challenging the order dated 01.07.2025 of the Commercial Court, Ranchi in Commercial Arbitration Case No. 13 of 2023 (Annexure-5) and seeking a direction to the Civil Judge (Sr. Division)- Page 5 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 cum-Commercial Court, Cuttack to issue warrant of attachment to Union Bank of India and to disburse the attached amount in Execution Case No. 186 of 2023 in its favour; on 14.08.2025, at the stage of admission, this Court issued notice to MECON and, as an interim measure, stayed the operation of the Ranchi Commercial Court’s order dated 01.07.2025. (xii) MECON has filed an application before this Court seeking vacation of the interim stay order dated 14.08.2025, placing reliance on the Jharkhand High Court’s order dated 04.02.2025 in CMP No. 415 of 2024 affirming the jurisdiction of the Ranchi Commercial Court over the Section 34 petition and contending that, once such jurisdiction stands recognized, the Ranchi Court is competent to entertain the Section 36 application and pass consequential directions in relation to the award and its enforcement. (xiii) The petitioner asserts that due to non-issuance of warrant of attachment and the continuing embargo on release of the attached amount, it is under severe financial distress; it states that for non- payment of loan dues to UCO Bank, Rourkela, its properties at Plot Nos. B/26 and B/27, Industrial Estate, Rourkela have already been auctioned and that the bank is initiating auction in respect of property at Plot Nos. CM-2/C and CM-3, Sector-7, CDA, Cuttack, and contends that unless the decretal dues under the arbitral award are realized, it will suffer serious and irreparable financial hardship. Page 6 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The core contention of the petitioner is that the Commercial Court at Ranchi, which is a coordinate Commercial Court established under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, has exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the Commercial Court, Cuttack, of another State and of equal rank, “not to release” the amount attached by order dated 25.11.2024 in Execution Case No. 186 of 2023. It is urged that courts of equal status cannot issue mandatory directions to each other, and that such “inter- court coordination” between coordinate commercial courts constitutes jurisdictional over-reach and is contrary to Indian jurisprudence on judicial hierarchy and comity between courts. (ii) The petitioner submits that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 contemplates territorial jurisdiction for each Commercial Court within its assigned area. The Commercial Court at Cuttack, having passed a reasoned order of attachment on 25.11.2024, is the executing court competent to proceed with Execution Case No. 186 of 2023. The Cuttack Court is not a party to the proceedings at Ranchi and is not subordinate to the Ranchi Commercial Court. Accordingly, any direction issued by the Ranchi Court to the Cuttack Court is ex facie without jurisdiction, non-binding, and liable to be quashed as being contrary to the basic structure of judicial hierarchy and the scheme of the Commercial Courts Act. Page 7 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (iii) With regard to the objection raised by the opposite party based on Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner contends that Section 42 deals only with jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and subsequent applications “under this Part” of the Act, and not with execution proceedings. The arbitral proceedings in the present case have already culminated in a final award dated 26.03.2023. At the execution stage, the proceedings are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 42 is therefore said to have exhausted its field once the arbitral proceedings ended in an award, and it cannot be invoked to question the maintainability of execution proceedings or the writ petition. (iv) In support of the above proposition, the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Samad1 decided on 15.02.2018, where it was held that an arbitral award can be executed anywhere in the country as a decree and that Section 42 has no application to execution applications, which are not “arbitral proceedings” but governed by the CPC. The petitioner further cites BCCI v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd.2 decided on 25.03.2018, which reiterated that Section 42 does not extend to execution petitions filed under the Civil Procedure Code. On this basis, the petitioner asserts that Execution Case No. 186 of 2023 before the Commercial Court, Cuttack is perfectly maintainable and independent of Section 42. 1 AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 965. 2 Civil Appeal Nos. 2879-2880 of 2018. Page 8 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (v) The petitioner asserts that the application under Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the opposite party at Ranchi is not maintainable in law unless it complies with the requirements for stay of a money decree under the Civil Procedure
Legal Reasoning
Code, 1908. It is contended that Section 36 mandates that while dealing with an application for stay of an arbitral award for payment of money, the court “shall have due regard” to the provisions relating to stay of money decrees under the CPC. According to the petitioner, these provisions, particularly the principles underlying Order XLI, require deposit of the decretal amount or furnishing of adequate security before stay can be granted, and an unsecured stay of execution is contrary to the statutory scheme. (vi) The petitioner specifically argues that the opposite party has neither deposited the decretal amount nor complied with the requirements analogous to those under Order XLI of the CPC, and yet has obtained a direction effectively stalling the execution and release of the attached amount. This is described as an illegal circumvention of the statutory safeguards designed to balance the rights of a decree-holder and judgment-debtor in money decrees. The petitioner contends that the Ranchi Commercial Court, in passing the impugned order, has failed to consider these mandatory aspects and has thereby acted in disregard of Section 36 read with the relevant CPC provisions. (vii) It is further contended that the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 is vitiated for non-consideration of the objections and written notes of Page 9 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 arguments filed by the petitioner, as well as the existing attachment order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the executing court at Cuttack. The petitioner alleges that the Ranchi Court did not whisper a single word regarding the attachment order nor examined the consequences of interfering indirectly with an execution proceeding pending in another State. This omission is projected as a violation of principles of natural justice, non-application of mind, and arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction. (viii) In response to the allegation of suppression made by the opposite party in its application for vacation of stay, the petitioner emphatically submits that there is no suppression of the order in CMP No. 415 of 2024 or of the pendency of the Section 34 proceedings at Ranchi. On the contrary, the petitioner categorically accepts that the Section 34 petition is pending and that it is participating therein. The petitioner’s challenge is confined to the jurisdictional competence of the Ranchi Commercial Court to restrain the executing court at Cuttack from issuing warrant or releasing the attached amount, and not to the maintainability of the Section 34 proceedings per se. (ix) The petitioner argues that the order of the Jharkhand High Court in CMP No. 415 of 2024, restoring the Section 34 petition at Ranchi, has no nexus with the limited question raised in the present writ petition, namely, whether a Commercial Court at Ranchi can direct a coordinate Commercial Court at Cuttack in relation to an execution proceeding. The petitioner maintains that its respect for, and participation in, the Section 34 proceedings do not dilute its right to challenge an Page 10 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 independent and jurisdictionally flawed order restraining execution and disbursement by a different court in another State. (x) The petitioner contends that the failure of the Commercial Court, Cuttack to issue warrant of attachment and to proceed with disbursement, despite a clear attachment order dated 25.11.2024 and despite the petitioner fulfilling all formal requirements, is arbitrary and has caused grave prejudice. The Cuttack Court is said to be unnecessarily delaying the execution under the shadow of the impugned order from Ranchi, though it is not legally bound by it. This delay, coupled with the petitioner’s mounting financial distress and auction of its properties, is pressed as an additional ground for this Hon’ble Court’s intervention by exercising writ jurisdiction to protect the petitioner’s substantive and procedural rights. (xi) On the issue of maintainability of the writ petition, the petitioner submits that there is no equally efficacious alternative remedy against an order of a coordinate Commercial Court of another State which effectively paralyzes execution proceedings in Odisha. The challenge goes to the very root of jurisdiction and judicial propriety rather than to mere factual appreciation. Hence, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Articles 226 and 227 is invoked to quash the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 and to direct the Commercial Court, Cuttack to issue warrant of attachment and disburse the attached amount in Execution Case No. 186 of 2023. Page 11 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (xii) In conclusion, the petitioner prays that, in view of the settled law on Section 42, the statutory scheme of Section 36 read with the CPC, the principles governing commercial courts’ territorial jurisdiction, and the prohibition on coordinate courts issuing binding directions to one another, the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Commercial Court, Ranchi be set aside with exemplary costs on the opposite party, and the Cuttack Commercial Court be directed to proceed with execution and release the attached amount to the petitioner. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY: 4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) Opposite Party’s principal contention is that by virtue of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, once an application “under this Part” (Part I) of the Act has been made before a particular court, that court alone has jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of the arbitration agreement. Since the Section 34 petition was filed first in point of time before the Commercial Court, Ranchi on 24.06.2023, the execution proceedings subsequently filed before the Commercial Court, Cuttack on 03.07.2023 are, according to MECON, not maintainable in law. (ii) It is further contended that the Commercial Court, Cuttack lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain execution at all, because MECON has neither bank accounts nor properties within its territorial jurisdiction. Page 12 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 The arbitral award was rendered at Ranchi and the bank account attached is located at Ranchi. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohit Bhargava v. Bharat Bhushan Bhargava3, to argue that execution must lie before the court having territorial jurisdiction over the person or property of the judgment debtor and that, in the present case, that court is in Jharkhand, not in Odisha. (iii) Opposite Party also presses the exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in the contract, which, according to it, confers jurisdiction on the courts at Ranchi alone. On that basis, combined with the order of the Jharkhand High Court dated 04.02.2025 affirming the jurisdiction of the Ranchi Commercial Court over the Section 34 petition, MECON argues that the entire supervisory and ancillary jurisdiction concerning the arbitral proceedings, including stay under Section 36, vests in Ranchi and not in Cuttack. Consequently, any execution must also be routed through the courts at Jharkhand. (iv) On the maintainability of the present writ petition before this High Court, MECON contends that an order passed by a court in another State, namely the Commercial Court at Ranchi, cannot be challenged before a different High Court. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Kumar Tiwari v. Indian Overseas Bank Asset Recovery Management and others4, to submit that a High Court cannot sit in appeal or judicial review over orders passed by 3 (2007) 4 SCC 795. 4 2023 INSC 937. Page 13 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 courts subordinate to another High Court. Hence, according to MECON, the petitioner ought to have approached the appropriate forum within the territorial jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court, and the present writ is inherently not maintainable. (v) MECON alleges that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact that the Jharkhand High Court, by order dated 04.02.2025, has already held that the Commercial Court, Ranchi has territorial jurisdiction to hear the Section 34 petition. It argues that this finding has attained finality, since the petitioner has not assailed it. On the doctrine that a party must approach the court with clean hands, MECON submits that suppression of this jurisdictional finding vitiates the writ proceedings
Decision
and is a sufficient ground to dismiss the writ petition with costs. (vi) On the scope of powers of the Ranchi Commercial Court, MECON contends that once jurisdiction has been conferred on that court to hear the Section 34 petition, it necessarily carries with it the power to consider and decide an application for stay of the arbitral award under Section 36 of the Act, as also to pass consequential directions necessary to protect the subject matter of the award. Therefore, the direction issued by the Commercial Court, Ranchi in relation to the attached bank account and the execution proceedings is argued to be an appropriate incident of its jurisdiction to consider the Section 36 application and not an instance of jurisdictional overreach. (vii) MECON finally urges that since the jurisdictional issue has been decided by the Jharkhand High Court in its favour, since Section 42 Page 14 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 mandates that all subsequent applications be made to the same court which first entertained the application under Part I, and since the petitioner has suppressed material orders and sought to execute the award in a court lacking territorial competence, the present writ petition is vitiated by suppression, forum shopping and want of jurisdiction. On these grounds, it prays that the writ petition be dismissed in limine with costs. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS: Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. The threshold question is whether this High Court can entertain a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution challenging an order of a Commercial Court in Jharkhand. It is now settled that a State High Court lacks jurisdiction to review or invalidate an order passed by a subordinate court in another State, especially when an alternate IV. 5. 6. remedy exists. 7. As the Supreme Court recently held in Pankaj Kumar Tiwari (Supra), if the High Courts start entertaining Article 226 petitions for challenging the orders passed by the Civil Courts in other states, it will lead to a chaotic situation. In that case, the Court set aside a High Court order which had stayed execution proceedings of a Bihar civil court, noting that the petitioners should have availed the statutory remedy before the forum where the order was originally made. The relevant excerpts are produced below: Page 15 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 India by specifically challenging “9. Then comes the role played by the first respondent bank. The order passed by the Civil Court in Bihar was appealable under Order XLIII of the CPC. Instead of availing the remedy of the appeal, the first respondent took the extraordinary step of invoking the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of the order of appointment of the Receiver passed by the Civil Court in Bihar. In our view, the first respondent ought not to have filed such a petition when a statutory remedy was available. Moreover, the High Court ought not to have entertained the Writ Petition. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is no doubt very wide. But the propriety and judicial discipline required the High Court not to entertain such a petition. The High Court ought to have relegated the first respondent to the statutory remedy while possibly granting a limited protection. A statutory remedy was available to the first respondent before the concerned Court in Bihar. If the High Courts start entertaining Article 226 petitions for challenging the orders passed by the Civil Courts in other states, it will lead to a chaotic situation. Therefore, we have no manner of doubt that the impugned order will have to be set aside.” 8. 9. The same principle applies here: the impugned order was passed by the Commercial Court at Ranchi (Jharkhand), and any grievance against that order should ordinarily be pursued in the courts of Jharkhand, not by way of an original writ in Odisha. The petitioner argues that this writ is confined to a narrow question of inter-court coordination and does not challenge the jurisdiction of the Ranchi court itself. However, this formal distinction does not override the territorial limits on Article 226 jurisdiction. Even if the petitioner seeks only declaratory relief or a direction to the executing court in Page 16 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 Odisha, the foundation of the complaint is the Ranchi court’s order. The Orissa High Court cannot sit in appeal over the order of a coordinate Commercial Court in another State. 10. The petitioner’s remedy was to seek appropriate relief in Jharkhand (for example, in the Jharkhand High Court or by interlocutory application in the Ranchi court). In light of these authorities, the writ petition is not maintainable on grounds of jurisdiction and must be dismissed. This Court notes, however, that since the petitioner is represented and has participated in the Section 34 and 36 proceedings in Jharkhand, the principles against forum-shopping also favour relying on those fora rather than this writ. 11. Even if this Court were to examine the substantive issues (for the sake of completeness), the petitioner’s contentions on jurisdiction comport with settled law. Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governs jurisdiction of courts during the arbitral process and provides that all applications under Part I must be heard by the court at the chosen seat of arbitration. However, the Supreme Court has held that once an arbitral award is final, Section 42 is no longer relevant to execution proceedings. 12. In Sundaram Finance (Supra) the Court expressly held that after the award has been made, it is enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure as if it were a decree of the Court, and therefore Sections 38 and 39 of the CPC (relating to transfer of decrees) have no application. The Court concluded that the award can, thus, be filed for execution as a decree of Page 17 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 civil court wherever the judgment debtor resides or carries on business or has properties within the jurisdiction of the said court. The relevant excerpts are produced below: “GE Money Financial Services Ltd. v. Mohd. Azaz & Anr. (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench) – The learned single Judge observed that the arbitrator cannot be treated as a court although the award made by him will be executed as a decree. Thus, Sections, 38 & 39 of the said Code would have no application and the award can, thus, be filed for execution as a decree of civil court wherever the judgment debtor resides or carries on business or has properties within the jurisdiction of the said court.” 13. In other words, once the arbitration is over, the award-holder is free to initiate execution in any court where the debtor has assets, without requiring a transfer from the court of the seat of arbitration. This directly supports the petitioner’s position that Execution Case No.186/2023 at Cuttack was not barred by Section 42: Section 42 governs only challenges to the award (which are pending in Ranchi), and does not prevent execution by any proper court under the CPC. 14. MECON’s reliance on Mohit Bhargava (Supra) which enforced the earlier view that execution must be done only within local limits of jurisdiction, is superseded by the above. The 2015 Amendment to the CPC (and the Sundaram decision) now allow execution of a decree or award at any place where the judgment-debtor has property or carries on business. The bank account attached by the Civil Court, Cuttack (in Ranchi) is squarely a “property” of the debtor. Thus, on settled law, execution in Odisha was perfectly permissible. We accordingly find no Page 18 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 merit in the contention that Section 42 ousts the Cuttack court’s jurisdiction to execute the award. 15. The petitioner also contends that the order of the Ranchi Commercial Court (staying release of the attached funds) violated the requirement that an award-debtor must deposit the decretal amount or furnish security when seeking a stay under Section 36(2) of the Act. Section 36(2) directs courts to have “due regard” to the CPC provisions on stay of money decrees when considering a stay of a money award. By analogy to Order XLI, Rule 5 of the CPC, it is understood that a decree- holder should receive adequate security before enforcement is restrained. 16. There is no indication on the record that MECON deposited the awarded sum or provided equivalent security, yet the executing court in Cuttack was ordered not to release the attached funds. This would appear to run counter to the statutory scheme designed to balance the interests of decree-holders and judgment-debtors. While this Court need not definitively decide the issue (in light of the jurisdictional bar), it notes that similar concerns have been recognized in judicial commentary and practice. 17. Finally, the petitioner points out that the Ranchi court’s impugned order makes no reference to the existing attachment order of 25.11.2024 by the executing court at Cuttack, nor to the petitioner’s written submissions. If the relief were to be considered on merits, such oversight would be troubling. Inter-court coordination should not be Page 19 of 21 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 enforced in a way that violates principles of natural justice or fair procedure. Here, the effect of the Ranchi order is to delay execution in Odisha without formally entering a stay or requiring security, even as the Cuttack court is arguably free to proceed. But again, since this petition is not the proper vehicle to resolve these disputes, this Court expresses no final view on such contentions. V. 18. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS: In sum, this Writ Petition must be dismissed as not maintainable. The Petitioner has an adequate remedy in the arbitrational framework (Sections 34 and 36 proceedings) before the Jharkhand courts where the award is challenged and its enforcement is sought. The question whether coordinate courts can issue binding directions to one another cannot be decided in a vacuum; it is addressed by the constitutional command that each High Court’s writ jurisdiction is territorially confined. 19. On the merits, even if entertained, the law as expounded by the Supreme Court favours the petitioner’s position on execution jurisdiction and suggests that a money award may not be stayed absent adequate security. However, these issues need resolution by the appropriate forum. This Writ Petition, being a collateral challenge to a Ranchi court order filed in the Orissa High Court, cannot be upheld. 20. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Page 20 of 21 21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 29th November, 2025/ Page 21 of 21