[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Chhattisgarh State Power vs M/S. Bharat Electrical ..... Opposite ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.615 of 2026
Chhattisgarh State Power ..... Petitioner
Distribution Company Ltd.
Represented by Adv. -
Sidhant Dwibedi
-versus-
m/s. bharat electrical ..... Opposite Party
accessories pvt ltd.
Represented by Adv. -
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
16.04.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the CMP
application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The Petitioner in ARBP No.15 of 2020 pending in the Court
of learned Senior Civil Judge, Commercial Court, Cuttack has
approached this Court by filing the present CMP application under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India thereby challenging order
dated 16.03.2026 passed by the abovenoted Court. On an
application filed by the Petitioner under Section 36(2) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that the Petitioner is a public undertaking of the Chhattisgarh
Government and the Opposite Party is a private entity who were
earlier engaged in some commercial activities. According to the
Private-Opposite Party he had some dues receivable from the
Petitioner. As a result of which the Petitioner approached under
the MSMED Act, 2006 raising a commercial dispute. Since the
matter could not be settled amicably the same was adjudicated and
disposed of vide a final award dated 19.02.2020 at Annexure-4 to
the CMP application. As per the award, the Petitioner is required
to pay to the Opposite Party a sum of Rs.9,70,591.89 along with
an interest of Rs.1,01,05,490.45.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award at Annexure-5, the
Petitioner approached the learned District Judge, Cuttack by filing
an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. He further contended that in view of the
provision contained in Section 19 of the Commercial Court's Act,
the Petitioner initially deposited 75% of the awarded amount to
get a right to challenge the award passed under the MSMED Act,
2006. After depositing 75% of the awarded amount including the
interest, the application of the Petitioner under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act was entertained by the learned
District Judge, Cuttack.
6. He further contended that during the pendency of the
aforesaid application under Section 34 of the A&C Act, 1996 for
setting aside the award, the Commercial Courts Act came into
force accordingly, the pending proceeding was transferred to the
Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Commercial Court, Cuttack. The
Petitioner moved an application under Section 36(2) of the A&C
Act, 1996 before the learned Commercial Court, Cuttack to stay
the award. Although the Opposite Party did not participate in such
proceeding by filing any specific objection to the application of
the Petitioner, however, such application has been disposed of by
the learned Commercial Court vide its order dated 16.03.2026 at
Annexure-9 to the CMP application wherein the learned
Commercial Court has held that the stay of the enforcement of the
award requires the Petitioner to deposit the entire awarded amount
and, subject to such terms and conditions, the application of the
Petitioner under Section 36(2) of A&C Act has been allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture
contended that as per the provision contained in Section 19 of the
MSMED Act, 2006, the Petitioner at the time of filing of the
application under Section 34 of the A&C Act has already
deposited 75% of the awarded amount. He further contended that
the application of the Petitioner for stay of the award under
Section 36(2) of the A&C Act is subject to the provision
contained in sub-Section (3) thereof. He further contended that as
per sub-Section (3) of Section 36, the procedure as has been
prescribed in the CPC for stay of the execution proceeding are to
be followed while considering the application under Section 36(2)
of the A&C Act. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for
the Petitioner contended that initially the Petitioner filed a Petition
under Section 34 of the A&C Act with a prayer for setting aside
the impugned award and, as an interim, filed an application under
Section 36 of the A&C Act for stay of the impugned award during
pending of the Section 34 application. The said interim application
of the Petitioner for stay of the impugned award was allowed
subject to the stringent condition of depositing the entire awarded
amount. Being aggrieved by the second part of the order where the
Petitioner has been asked to deposit the entire awarded amount,
the Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for
modification of order dated 16.03.2026 at Annexure-9.
9. Taking into consideration the factual background of the
present case in its entirety, the fact that the Petitioner has already
deposited the 75% of the awarded amount and that the Petitioner-
Corporation is ready and willing to secure the balance amount,
this Court is inclined to issue notice to the Opposite Party and to
examine the matter further in presence of such Opposite Party.
10. Hence, issue notice to the sole Opposite Party by Speed
Post with A.D. by fixing a short returnable date. Requisites be
filed within three working days.
11. List this matter in the week commencing 20.07.2026.
12. Reply affidavit, if any be filed by the sole Opposite Party.
13. Issue notice as above.
14. One set of process fee.
15. As an interim, it is directed that the part of the order dated
16.03.2026 whereby the Petitioner has been directed to deposit the
entire awarded amount shall be kept in abeyance till the next date.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Sisir
Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 17-Apr-2026 19:37:47
