Orissa High Court
Director vs Sylvesa Infotech Pvt. Ltd. .... ... on 10 October, 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: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.21111 of 2025
along with
W.P.(C) No.24348 of 2024
(In the matters of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
(In W.P.(C) No.21111 of 2025)
Director, Land Records & Surveys .... Petitioner(s)
Govt. of Odisha & Anr.
-versus-
Sylvesa Infotech Pvt. Ltd. .... Opposite Party(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA.
-versus-
For Opp. Party(s) : Mr. A. R. Sethy, Adv.
Mr. J.P. Behera, Adv.
(In W.P.(C) No.24348 of 2024)
Sylvesa Infotech Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha and Anr. .... Opposite Party(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. A. R. Sethy, Adv.
Mr. J.P. Behera, Adv.
-versus-
For Opp. Party(s) : Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
Page 1 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 10-Oct-2025 17:50:14
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATES OF HEARING:- 20.08.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:- 10.10.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the above-
mentioned Writ Petitions, the same were heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment. However, this Court finds it
appropriate to treat W.P.(C) No.21111 of 2025 as the leading case for
proper adjudication of both the matters.
2. W.P.(C) No.21111 of 2025 is preferred by the Petitioners/ State
challenging the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned Senior
Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Cuttack in ARBP No.25 of 2023
allowing the petition dated 22.10.2024 filed by the Petitioners/ State
for stay operation of award dated 15.05.2023 and stay further
proceedings in ARBP Execution Case No.257 of 2023 subject to deposit
of the entire award amount till the date of the award i.e. 15.05.2023 by
the Petitioners/ State.
3. W.P.(C) No.24348 of 2024 has been filed by the Petitioner/ Company
seeking a direction from this Court for early disposal of Execution
Case No.257 of 2023 by the learned Senior Civil Judge (Commercial
Court), Cuttack.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
4. For furnishing the Modern Record Room, an agreement was signed
between the parties for Installation of Computer and Peripherals,
Compactors and Furniture to 113 Modern Record Rooms in two
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
divisions. Work order was issued in favour of the present Opposite
Party on 7.1.2013.
5. The project was to be completed within 12 months from the date of
signing of the Agreement. The payment schedule was fixed at 80%
after delivery of items and 20% after successful installation and
running of items for 1 month.
6. There were certain delays and requests for priority completion as well
as extension of time in the middle, after which on 13.8.2014, the
present Petitioner terminated the Agreement.
7. On 24.11.2014, the Petitioner blacklisted the present Opposite Party.
Aggrieved, the present Opposite Party had approached this Court in
W.P.(C) No. 23714 of 2014 challenging the same. This Court vide order
dated 3.12.2014 was pleased to quash the blacklisting order on the
ground that no show cause notice was issued to the Opposite Party
herein.
8. Accordingly, on 2.4.2015, the present Petitioner issued a show cause
notice for blacklisting the present Opposite Party. The present
Opposite Party then filed W.P.(C) No. 7400 of 2015 before this Court
seeking stay of the show cause notice. Vide order dated 15.4.2015, this
Court was pleased to dispose of the aforementioned Writ Petition and
direct the present Opposite Party to file its reply before the Petitioner.
It was also directed that the present Petitioner would dispose of the
show cause reply only after granting personal hearing to the Opposite
Party.
9. During Personal hearing on 21.7.2015 before the Petitioner, the
Opposite Party requested to allow him to complete the work. The said
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
request was allowed and the Opposite Party was permitted to
complete the work of 45 Tahasils on 21.7.2015. Work order for
resumption of work was issued accordingly on 7.10.2015.
10.The present Opposite Party sent a notice for settlement of his claim of
Rs.108,01,39,674.49 vide their letter No. SREF/548/18-19 dated
15.2.2019. With reference to this notice, the Opposite Party again sent
a notice No. SREF/551/18-19, dated 9.3.2019 and appointed an
arbitrator Sri Bimal Prasad Das, retired Judge, Orissa High Court,
Cuttack requesting to appoint him as arbitrator from his side.
11.In response to the above notices of the Opposite Party, the Petitioner
has clarified that the claims and outstanding dues were intimated to
the Opposite Party that as per the clause 7.11.1 of the RFP, which is
part of the agreement, the Principal Secretary, Revenue & DM
Department, Odisha is the sole arbitrator for settlement of issues.
12.Thereafter, the present Opposite Party filed ARBP No. 27 of 2019
before this Court seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator. This Court
vide order dated 5.3.2021 appointed Justice B.P.Das (former Judge) as
sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the Parties.
13.Accordingly hearing in the thus instituted Arbitration Proceeding No.
45 of 2021 commenced. Vide award dated 15.5.2023, the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator directed the present Petitioner to pay Rs. 7,46,45,227/- to the
present Opposite Party within three months, failing which the amount
shall carry interest at 10% till its realization.
14.The present Petitioner filed ARBP No. 25 of 2023 against the award
dated 15.5.2023 u/s 34 of the A&C Act before the Commercial Court,
Cuttack on 21.6.2023.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
15.The present Opposite Party filed Execution Petition No. 257 of 2023
before the Commercial Court, Cuttack on 5.10.2023 seeking
enforcement of the award dated 15.5.2023.
16.The present Petitioner sought stay of the execution proceeding in
ARBP No. 25 of 2023 which was allowed subject to deposit of the
entire award amount vide the Ld. Commercial Court's order dated
2.5.2023.
17.Aggrieved, the present Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
18.Now that the broad facts leading up to the instant Petition have been
laid down, this Court shall endeavour to fully summarise the
contentions of the Parties and the broad grounds that have been urged
to seeking the exercise of this Court's plenary powers of supervisory
jurisdiction.
II. PETITIONERS' SUBMISSIONS:
19.It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the Impugned
Order is liable to be set aside as the Ld. Sr Civil Judge (Commercial
Court), Cuttack has failed to assign any reasons as to why a deposit of
100% is required and has based its order on the Opposite Party's mere
asking that the Petitioner be directed to deposit 100%.
20.It is further contended that the arbitral award which is also assailed
before the Ld. Sr Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Cuttack, suffers
from perversity, patent illegality and non-application of mind. It is the
Petitioner's contention that when the arbitral award itself has good
reasons to be set aside, a deposit of 100% of the awarded amount
would be an onerous burden placed on the Petitioner. The same
would also lead to financial ruin and therefore, keeping in mind the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
balance of convenience, the Petitioner's may not be asked to deposit
100% of the awarded amount.
III. OPPOSITE PARTY'S SUBMISSIONS:
21.Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Opposite
Party/Company that the Ld. Sr. Civil Judge (Commercial Court),
Cuttack has considered the application for stay preferred by the
present Petitioners/ State on merits and given the bar under Section 8
of the Commercial Courts Act, this Court ought to be slow to interfere
with the same.
22.It is further submitted that the present arbitral award is a money
decree and that this Court as well as the Supreme Court have time
and again upheld, even directed that the condition of deposit of 100%
of the awarded amount is appropriate as the Judgment Debtors
should not be permitted to shirk their responsibilities and obligations.
IV. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:
23.Having heard the parties and perused the materials available on
record, this court has identified the singular following issue that has
to be determined which have emerged contentiously during the
course of the hearing and is germane to finally decide the lis at hand;
A. WHETHER THE LD. SR CIVIL JUDGE (COMMERCIAL
COURT), CUTTACK HAS CORRECTLY ADJUDICATED
THE REQUEST FOR STAY OF THE EXECUTION
PROCEEDING PREFERRED BY THE PRESENT
PETITIONER?
24. This Court is first required to keep in view the fact that the
impugned order has been passed by the Commercial Court. In view of
the provisions contained in Section 8 of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, there is a bar against entertaining
the revision against an interlocutory order. Section 8 of the
Act, 2015 reads as under:
"8. Bar against revision application or petitionagainst an
interlocutory order.
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
for the time being in force, no
civil revision application or petition shall be
entertained against any interlocutory order of
Commercial Court, including an order on the issue of
jurisdiction, and any such challenge, subject to the
provisions of section 13, shall be raised only
in an appeal against the decree of the Commercial Court."
25.The provisions of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 cannot
operate as an absolute bar to exercise of the power under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Section 8 despite its initial
non-obstante clause, cannot operate as an absolute bar to the exercise
of the power of judicial review by High Courts, which is conferred by
the Constitution of India under Article 227 thereof, since
the 2015 Act is a subordinate legislation under the Constitution, the
latter being the grundnorm of the Indian legal system cannot obstruct
the powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
26. A creature of the Constitution of India cannot act in negation of the
provisions of the Constitution of India. This Court is reminded
of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai1, concerned with the impact of
the amendment in Section 115 of the CPC brought about by the
(2003) 6 SCC 675
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
amendment of the CPC with effect from 1st July, 2002. In the wake of
the said amendment, a question arose, whether on such amendment
restricting/limiting the orders of the subordinate courts with respect
to which a revision application under Section 115 of the CPC could be
preferred to the High Court, an aggrieved person was completely
deprived of the remedy of judicial review under Article 227 also. It
was held, that curtailment of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court
did not take away and could not have taken away the constitutional
jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari to a civil
court, nor was the power of superintendence conferred on the High
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution taken away or whittled
down. It was further held that the said power continued to exists,
untrammelled by the amendment in Section 115 CPC and remained
available to be exercised, subject to the rules of self-discipline and
practice, which were well settled. Similarly, in State of
Gujarat v. Vakhatsinghji Vajesinghji, Vaghela2, Jetha Bai and Sons,
Jew Town, Cochin v. Sunderbas Rathenai3, State of H.P. v. Dhanwant
Singh4 and Union of India v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma5 it was
held that the legislature cannot take away the power of
superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution over all Courts and Tribunals which are within the
territories in relation to which the High Court exercises its
AIR 1968 SC 1481
(1988) 1 SCC 722
(2004) 13 SCC 331
(2015) 6 SCC 773
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
jurisdiction. Rather, in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India6, judicial
review including under Article 227, was held to be a basic feature of
the Constitution, even beyond the realm of amendability and Clause
2(d) of Article 323A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323B, to the extent
excluded the jurisdiction of the High Court and Supreme Court under
Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution with respect to matters
falling within the jurisdiction of the Courts and Administrative
Tribunals referred to therein, were held to be unconstitutional.
27. The Parliament has, mandated that no
civil revision application or petition shall be entertained against
the interlocutory order of Commercial Court. It has taken care to
provide that an interlocutory order on the issue of jurisdiction also
cannot be made the subject matter of challenge and any challenge to
such order shall be raised only in an appeal against the decree
of Commercial Court. Having regard to the legislative object and the
intent of the legislature in barring the remedy of revision, which is
otherwise available to a party in civil proceedings, the exercise of writ
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, though not
ousted, yet needs to be informed by the limited nature of the said
jurisdiction, lest the legislative object of proscribing revision would be
defeated if the legality, propriety and correctness of every order
passed by the Commercial Court is examined in exercise of the
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(1997) 3 SCC 261
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
28.Thus this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India with respect to orders of the Commercial Courts at the level of
the District Judge is maintainable and the jurisdiction and powers of
the High Court have not been affected in any manner whatsoever by
Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act. However, this Court shall
endeavour to exercise restraint unless the matter warrants
interference.
29.Now this Court shall examine the merits of the Petition.
30.A swift and smooth enforcement of domestic arbitral awards is
unquestionably an ideal prospect, but can be elusive at times due to
the framework for court proceedings involved in enforcing an award.
The time taken and procedures involved in enforcement proceedings
have drawn substantial criticism over the years, paving the way for
the amendments in 2015 and 2019 to the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 (the "Arbitration Act").
31.Section 36 of the Arbitration Act provides that a domestic arbitral
award shall be enforced in the same manner as if it were a decree
passed by the court, once the time prescribed for making an
application to set aside the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration
Act had expired or an application made for this purpose had been
refused. Prior to its amendment in 2015, the Arbitration Act did not
specifically address the issue of whether the operation of a domestic
arbitral award would be stayed while a challenge to the award under
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was pending.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
32.Considering this issue, the Supreme Court, in National Aluminum
Company Ltd. (NALCO) v. Pressteel & Fabrications (P) Ltd. and
Anr.7 held that a domestic arbitral award becomes "unexecutable"
once it is challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, and that
such "automatic suspension" would apply until challenge proceedings
were dismissed.
33.This 'automatic stay' rule (as it came to be colloquially known) forced
an award-holder to await the outcome of challenge proceedings
before any steps could be taken to enforce the award. The hardship
caused by this rule was exacerbated by general delays faced in
disposal of court proceedings. This state of affairs drew substantial
criticism, including in 2014 from the Law Commission of India in its
246th Report.
34.Parliament then enacted the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment)
Act, 2015 (the "2015 Amendment"), which sought to do away with the
automatic stay rule. It amended Section 36 by stipulating that the
mere filing of a challenge under Section 34 would not render a
domestic arbitral award unenforceable, and a stay of the operation of
the award would have to be specifically sought from and granted by
the relevant court. Accordingly, unless a court stayed the operation of
an award, the award-holder was at liberty to have it enforced in
accordance with the Arbitration Act. The 2015 Amendment became
effective on October 23, 2015.
(2004) 1 SCC 540
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
35.Section 36 of the A&C Act, as amended in 2015 is reproduced
hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:
"36. Enforcement--(1) Where the time for making an
application to set aside the arbitral award under section
34 has expired, then, subject to the provisions of sub-
section (2), such award shall be enforced in accordance
with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(5 of 1908), in the same manner as if it were a decree of
the court.
(2) Where an application to set aside the arbitral award
has been filed in the Court under section 34, the filing of
such an application shall not by itself render that award
unenforceable, unless the Court grants an order of stay of
the operation of the said arbitral award in accordance
with the provisions of sub-section (3), on a separate
application made for that purpose.
(3) Upon filing of an application under sub-section (2)
for stay of the operation of the arbitral award, the Court
may, subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, grant
stay of the operation of such award for reasons to be
recorded in writing:
Provided that the Court shall, while considering the
application for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral
award for payment of money, have due regard to the
provisions for grant of stay of a money decree under the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908).]
2[Provided further that where the Court is satisfied that a
Prima facie case is made out that,--
(a) the arbitration agreement or contract which is the
basis of the award; or
(b) the making of the award,
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
was induced or effected by fraud or corruption, it shall
stay the award unconditionally pending disposal of the
challenge under section 34 to the award.
Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
clarified that the above proviso shall apply to all court
cases arising out of or in relation to arbitral proceedings,
irrespective of whether the arbitral or court proceedings
were commenced prior to or after the commencement of
the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
(3 of 2016)."
36.Having considered the submissions of the Parties, the Court in an
Application under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act exercises its
discretion in granting a stay of the impugned Award. Whether to
impose conditions and to what extent is dependent upon the
facts and circumstances of each case. Once an Award is passed by the
learned Arbitrator, till it is stayed, the Award is in the form of the
decree and can be executed in that form by the Executing
Court and thus, whether the Section 34 Petition has been dismissed or
it is yet to be considered, the same parameters would apply for stay of
the Award.
37.This Court also refers to the decision of the Delhi High Court
in Power Mech Projects Ltd. v. Sepco Electric Power Construction
Corporation8, wherein the Delhi High Court has referred to the
Supreme Court decisions in Srei Infrastructure Finance
Limited v. Candor Gurgaon Two Developers and Projects Pvt. Ltd.9
and Manish v. Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development
2020 SCC OnLine Del 2049
SLP (C) Nos. 20895-20897/2019
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Corporation10, wherein the Supreme Court had directed 100% deposit
of the awarded amount. The Delhi High Court has in that case held
that in the view of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, the
Petitioner must deposit 100% of the awarded amount to secure the
Respondent.
38.Relevant order of Supreme Court in SREI Infrastructure Finance
Limited (supra) reads as under:--
"Heard learned counsel on both sides.
In the circumstances of the case, we consider it
appropriate, in the interest of justice, that the following
interim order shall be in force during the pendency of
proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996:--
There shall be interim stay of the award subject to the
petitioner's depositing 60% of the amount of the decree.
The remaining 40% of the amount shall be secured by
way of bank guarantee(s) of the nationalized bank within
eight weeks. The respondent shall be at liberty to
withdraw the said amount on furnishing appropriate
security.
The proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
conciliation Act, 1966 may be decided as expeditiously as
possible, not later than six months.
The special leave petitions are disposed of accordingly."
39.Relevant order of the Supreme Court in Manish (supra) reads as
under:--
"No one appears for the respondent, even though served.
The Bombay High Court has ordered 60% deposit,
pending the Section 37 appeal. We have passed orders
SLP (C) Nos. 11760-11761/2018
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
stating that since these are money decrees there should be
100% deposit, with the respondent being entitled to
withdraw the amount deposited and furnish solvent
security to the satisfaction of the High Court.
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders dated
19.03.2018 and mandate a 100% deposit be made within
a period of eight weeks from today.
The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly."
40.The principle that emerges from this is that where it is in the interest
of justice to direct the deposit of 100% of the awarded amount, where
the Award is in the nature of money decree and stay of the impugned
Award has been sought, the same can and may be directed.
41.The A&C Act aims to provide a fair, efficient, and binding mechanism
for dispute resolution, in line with international practices. One of the
essential aspects of arbitration is the enforcement of arbitral awards,
which gives finality and teeth to the arbitral process. However,
enforcement is not absolute. Section 36 of the Act deals with the
enforcement of arbitral awards and provides for the conditions under
which an award may be enforced as if it were a decree of the court.
Particularly, Section 36(3) empowers the court to impose conditions,
including ordering the full deposit of the awarded amount, while
considering an application for stay of enforcement. The purpose is to
balance the interests of the award holder and the judgment debtor,
preventing frivolous objections and undue delays.
42.Section 36(3) of the Act was introduced via the 2015 Amendment to
prevent automatic stay of awards merely because a challenge under
Section 34 has been filed. Instead, a party seeking stay must file a
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
separate application, and the court, in its discretion, may grant a stay
subject to such conditions as it may deem fit. The legislative intent is
clear: the discretion conferred on the court is to ensure that award
holders are not left remediless during the pendency of often-
protracted challenges. In this light, a direction to deposit the entire
awarded amount is a valid exercise of judicial discretion. It neither
pre-empts the challenge under Section 34 nor prejudices the rights of
the award debtor, as it merely secures the awarded sum.
43.Judicial discretion under Section 36(3) is neither arbitrary nor
unbridled. It must be exercised judiciously, based on the facts of each
case. Courts often consider factors such as the financial position of the
judgment debtor, the nature of the objections under Section 34, the
conduct of the parties, and whether any part of the award has already
been satisfied. The Supreme Court in Pam Developments Pvt. Ltd. v.
State of West Bengal11 clarified that no straitjacket formula exists, and
the courts must weigh the equities involved. However, once such
discretion is exercised on a reasoned basis, it becomes an integral part
of the judicial process and is not to be lightly interfered with under
supervisory jurisdiction, especially under Article 227 of the
Constitution.
44.Article 227 confers on High Courts the power of superintendence over
all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction. However, this power
is supervisory, not appellate. It is meant to ensure that courts act
within their jurisdiction and follow the procedural framework. It is
not intended to re-evaluate facts or sit in appeal over discretionary
(2019) 8 SCC 112
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
judicial orders. The Supreme Court has consistently held that Article
227 should be exercised sparingly and only to correct jurisdictional
errors or patent perversity. In Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath12, the
Court emphasized that Article 227 is not a tool for judicial review in
the manner of an appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, when a court
directs the deposit of the awarded amount while granting a stay, it is
exercising a discretion within its statutory jurisdiction under Section
36(3), and not committing any jurisdictional error warranting
interference.
45.Directing full deposit of the awarded sum does not amount to a denial
of rights; it merely ensures that the award is not rendered illusory by
delays or insolvency of the judgment debtor. It is a measure to secure
the interest of the award holder, who has already undergone a time-
consuming arbitration process and obtained a favourable award.
Courts, in several cases, have upheld such directions as reasonable.
The discretion to direct deposit is integral to the court's power to
grant stay and that this discretion cannot be fettered by rigid rules.
The objective is to safeguard the efficacy of the arbitral process and
not to cause hardship. The deposit does not imply that the award is
beyond challenge; it only ensures that the challenge does not operate
to the prejudice of the award holder.
46.The settled position of law is that supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 can be invoked only when there is a clear case of
jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or manifest injustice.
Directions to deposit the awarded amount do not fall into any of these
(2015) 5 SCC 423
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
categories. In fact, courts exercise such power routinely in civil cases
while granting stay of money decrees under Order XLI Rule 5 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. Judicial discretion cannot be challenged
merely because another view is possible. The court's decision to direct
deposit of the award is a legitimate use of its discretion, based on a
consideration of equities and merits, and not a usurpation of power.
47.The 1996 Act envisions minimal court intervention in arbitral
proceedings and seeks to uphold the finality of arbitral awards.
However, the courts act as guardians of the process, ensuring that
arbitral justice is not rendered nugatory by delaying tactics. A
direction to deposit the awarded sum reflects this protective role. It
aligns with the objectives of the Act and international norms
promoting prompt enforcement of awards. Moreover, such judicial
directions foster confidence in the arbitral process by demonstrating
that courts will enforce awards robustly unless serious legal
infirmities are shown. The court's power under Section 36(3) thus
complements, rather than conflicts with, the constitutional ethos of
access to justice and legal remedies.
48.In sum, the power of courts to direct full deposit of an arbitral award
under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a
recognized facet of their discretionary jurisdiction. It serves to strike a
balance between the right to challenge an award and the right to
enforce it. Such discretion, once exercised with application of mind
and supported by reasons, cannot be interfered with lightly under
Article 227 of the Constitution. In order to do so would be to reduce
supervisory jurisdiction to an appellate power, which is legally
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
impermissible. Courts must be allowed the space to enforce their
equitable powers, especially when the broader goal is to ensure justice
and preserve the sanctity of the arbitral process. Interference under
Article 227 should remain the exception, not the rule--especially
where the original court's discretion is neither arbitrary nor unjust.
49.While it cannot be said as a principle of law that there is a mandate
that in every case the Court must insist on a 100% deposit, before
hearing a petition under Section 34 of the Act or before staying the
enforcement of the Award, as the amount of deposit would depend
on the facts of the case and is in the discretion of the Court hearing the
petition, the circumstances and the facts of the present case warrants
that the petitioner should be directed to deposit the principal amount
awarded to the respondent before the petitioner is heard on merits.
50.This Court, finds no merit in the present Writ Petition and does not
deem it an appropriate case to exercise its jurisdiction. The Ld. Sr Civil
Judge (Commercial Court), Cuttack has not made any error in law
that would warrant interference.
51.Here, this Court would like to express its displeasure over the conduct
of the present Petitioner. The synopsis of the present Petitioner is
reproduced hereunder:
"That the petitioner in this writ petition have assailed the
orders passed by the Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Commercial
Court, Cuttack in ARBP No. 25/23, wherein the prayer
for stay on the execution proceeding in Execution Case
No. 257/23 has been turned down."
52.The prayer for stay was not "turned down". It was allowed subject to
deposit. Parties approaching the Court must recognize that the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
judicial process is a serious matter and not treat it as a tool to
manipulate outcomes through misleading or exaggerated
submissions. It is essential for litigants to present their cases truthfully
and accurately, without attempting to distort facts to gain an
advantage. Any attempt to misrepresent the nature of proceedings, or
to mislead the Court about the status of orders, undermines the
integrity of the legal system. Such conduct not only delays justice but
also disrespects the Court's time and resources, which are valuable
and meant for cases that deserve genuine consideration.
53.Litigants should be mindful of the consequences of approaching the
Court with frivolous claims or attempts to delay proceedings. When a
party seeks to take advantage of the Court's time by presenting
baseless or irrelevant arguments, they only waste resources and harm
their own cause. Every party has a duty to act in good faith and to
ensure that their submissions are grounded in facts and law. Attempts
to circumvent responsibilities or delay proceedings are not only
counterproductive but also reflect poorly on the party involved. The
Court expects litigants to approach it with integrity and responsibility,
rather than as a means for unjust advantage.
54.Furthermore, misrepresenting facts or shirking responsibility for one's
actions is unbecoming of any party in litigation. Parties must be
accountable for the claims they bring before the Court and the manner
in which they present them. The legal system thrives on transparency
and honesty, and any attempt to obscure the truth can lead to
unnecessary complications, sanctions, or even dismissal of claims.
Frivolous litigation only serves to burden the judicial system and
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
deprives other deserving parties of timely justice. Parties must bear in
mind that the Court's primary role is to administer fair and just
outcomes, and they must contribute to this by maintaining a
respectful, truthful, and responsible approach.
V. CONCLUSION:
55.In the above backdrop of the case, prayer made in W.P.(C) No.21111
of 2025 is dismissed. Learned Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court),
Cuttack is directed to dispose of the Execution Case No.257 of 2023 as
early as possible preferably within a period of three months from
today.
56. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to
costs. Ordered accordingly.
57.Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the Writ Petitions stands
vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated 10th Oct., 2025.
