M/S. Aryan Ispat And Power vs General Manager And Another on 6 April, 2026

Author: Murahari Sri Raman

Bench: Murahari Sri Raman

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                      WA No.305 of 2026
                 M/s. Aryan Ispat and Power          ....           Appellant
                 Private Limited
                                            Mr. Biyotkesh Mohanty, Advocate

                                         -versus-
                 General Manager and another          ....         Respondents
                                                                       None

                                   CORAM:
                       THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                     AND
                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

                                          ORDER

Order No.                                06.04.2026


    01.     1.    The case of the appellant is that the respondent no.2-Small

Enterprise certified by the District Industries Centre, Sundargarh, alleging non-payment of dues towards supply of iron ore to the appellant during 2019-2021, approached the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (in short, "the Council") claiming an amount of Rs.3,94,35,891/- (including principal and interest).

1.1. During pendency of such reference, the respondent no.2 made self-same claim before the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi ("NCLT", for brevity) on 24th February, 2022, which was allowed to be withdrawn on 6 th January, 2023 after the appellant made payment of entire dues. While matter stood thus, on 28th June, 2024, respondent no.2 approached the Council, which passed

award against the appellant. Questioning the propriety, a proceeding was instituted before the learned District Judge, Sundargarh for setting aside the award so passed by the Council in the month of November, 2024, but the same was transferred to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge- cum-Commercial Court, Rourkela. Though said Case was admitted vide order dated 21st April, 2025, on a petition being filed by the respondent no.2 before the said Court for recalling the order dated 21st April, 2025 on the ground of limitation and also raising objection that the appellant did not deposit 75% of the awarded amount, the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Rourkela directed the appellant to make good such deposit vide order dated 4th November, 2025.

1.2. Assailing the order dated 4th November, 2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Rourkela, a writ petition has been filed before this Court, which was registered as WP(C) No.34448 of 2025, styled as an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Said writ petition got disposed of by a learned Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 9th January, 2026 upholding the order dated 4th November, 2025.

1.3. Since no relief is granted to the appellant by the learned Single Judge, this intra-Court appeal has been filed invoking Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the

High Court of Judicature at Patna read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Rules, 1948 seeking intervention in the judgment dated 9th January, 2026 passed in WP(C) No.34448 of 2025.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since the appellant had deposited entire amount due to the respondent no.2 and the matter before the NCLT being allowed to be withdrawn by said respondent, the learned Single Judge erred in law to direct the appellant to deposit 75% of the awarded amount for the purpose of maintaining the appeal under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, it has come to fore that the judicial order dated 4th November, 2025 was passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Rourkela in Arbitration Petition No.10 of 2024. Said order was assailed in the writ petition.

4. Upon query, it is conceded the learned counsel for the appellant that though the writ petition has been filed with title "An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India;", the learned Single Judge has passed the judgment under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the judicial order dated 4th November, 2025 passed

by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Rourkela.

4.1. This Court is of the view that the writ petition questioning dated 4th November, 2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Rourkela in Arbitration Petition No.10 of 2024 is not maintainable. An identical question arose in an intra-Court appeal being M/s. NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd., Haryana Vrs. Chief Engineer (Roads-I), Bhubaneswar, W.A. No.237 of 2026 arising out of an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court against the order passed by the Commercial Court. Vide judgment dated 10th March, 2026, this Court in the said appeal held that judicial order is not susceptible to be challenged for invocation of writ of certiorari. In the said judgment, it has been observed as follows:

"11. Be that as it may, the judgment rendered in Radhey Shyam and another vs. Chhabi Nath and others, AIR 2015 SC 3269 has created an embargo in entertaining an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, the writ of certiorari against the judicial order passed by the Court in a civil proceeding, and, therefore, the writ in the nature of certiorari is not an appropriate remedy for an aggrieved person.

12. It leads to another aspect as to whether power of superintendence has also been taken away in relation to a judicial order passed in a civil proceeding; the answer is negatived. The power of superintendence encapsulated within its fold to keep the Court and the tribunals

subordinate to it within its territories to travel within the circumference of law and in the event, it is found that the Court has transgressed such boundary, the High Court may pass an appropriate order which is just in tune with the settled legal provisions. There is no fetter either in Surya Dev Rai Vrs. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 or Radhey Shyam (supra) created in entertaining an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against a judicial order passed in a civil proceeding, and, therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the application under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable in such situations.

13. A piquant situation has arisen when the application is captioned as an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Both the provisions have been resorted to, but the categorization of the case appears to have been done treating such application to have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judge who passed the impugned order was conferred with the jurisdiction/ determination to deal with such application(s). There is no incongruity on our part in proceeding on such basis that an application under Article 226 of the Constitution is entertained by the Single Bench against an order passed in execution of decree by the Commercial Court and being the judicial order, the writ of certiorari is not an appropriate remedy as the same is not maintainable in view of the law laid down in Radhey Shyam (supra).

***

16. Though we do not find any infirmity in exercise of the jurisdiction as a plea of demur was not taken by the appellant nor do we find any reference thereof in the impugned order, once such plea is taken in the instant appeal as a plea of jurisdiction which strikes at the root

of the exercise of power, we permit such point to be taken and decided in the instant writ appeal.

17. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we hasten to say that the writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against the judicial order passed in a civil proceeding, but equally the proceeding is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."

4.2. Since the issue of jurisdiction strikes at the root of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that writ petition as considered by the learned Single Bench against the order dated 4th November, 2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Rourkela in Arbitration Petition No.10 of 2024 is not maintainable. Accordingly, this Court while quashing the judgment dated 9th January, 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.34448 of 2025 holds that the writ petition is not maintainable in the wake of discussions made supra.

5. In view of the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal stands disposed of. As a result of disposal of the writ appeal, all pending Interlocutory Application (s), shall stand disposed of, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

(Harish Tandon) Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Chief Justice Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Apr-2026 16:35:46 (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant