M/S Kcs Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Mecon Ltd
2025 Latest Caselaw 10632 Ori

Orissa High Court

M/S Kcs Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Mecon Ltd on 29 November, 2025

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                                                      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)             :             Mr. Suvendu Kumar Ray, Adv.

        For Opposite Party (s)        :        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:















(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

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.

(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,

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)-

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.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) 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.

(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.

AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 965.

Civil Appeal Nos. 2879-2880 of 2018.

(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

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

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

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.

(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.

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

(2007) 4 SCC 795.

2023 INSC 937.

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

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

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.

IV. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS:

5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents

placed before this Court.

6. 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

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:

"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 India by specifically challenging 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. 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.

9. 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

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

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

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

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. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS:

18. 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.

21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 29th November, 2025/