The court held that arbitration awards must be enforced without delay, stressing the executing court's duty to assess compliance, even amidst pending appeals, unless a stay is explicitly granted.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

Heard the learned counsel Sri Pradeep Nayak for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri Pavan Kumar on behalf of Smt. Annapurna bordoloi for the respondent/Caveator.

2. The objections raised by the Registry is overruled.

3. These three matters are taken up for disposal with consent of both the learned counsels.

4. These petitions are filed by the decree holder in the Commercial Execution petition No.686/2024. An arbitration proceedings was initiated by the respondent which culminated by virtue of an order dated 09.10.2023 in A.C. No.207/2022. Based on the said arbitral award, decree holder filed execution petition to execute the arbitral award in the Commercial Execution Petition No.686/2024. In the said execution petition, the decree holder filed three applications; one Under section 60 read with Order 21 and section 151 CPC ; Second under Order 21 Rule 41 read with section 151 CPC; Third Under Order 21 Rule 11(A) read with section 151 CPC. All these applications were taken up together and by virtue of a common order dated 30.08.2025, the learned Judge of the commercial court being not convinced with the arguments made on the applications, rejected all the three applications which is impugned in these three petitions.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel Sri Pradeep Nayak appearing on behalf of the petitioner that, the principal award amount as on the date of the award stood at Rs.11,36,51,125/-payable by the respondent. The respondent had paid a meagre amount of Rs.39,67,756/-. Apart from this, there was an amount of Rs.1,67,99,990/- which was deposited during the arbitration proceedings by the respondent. So also another portion of the amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- was held as a security deposit which was to be adjusted against receivables. The table is mentioned in the writ petition is as under:

PETITIONER'S COMPUTATION AND WORKINGS OF AWARD VALUE

6. Aggrieved by the arbitral award, the respondent challenged the same by filing a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act') in commercial arbitration petition No.155/2023. In the said application under section 34 of the Act, there was an order of stay granted subject to deposit of 5% of the award amount within a period of five weeks, which was again challenged by the petitioner herein in W.P.No.23546/2023, and the same came to be dismissed. The same was taken up before the Apex Court and the Apex Court modified the condition of stay of the award and directed the respondent to deposit 50% of the award in accordance to the undertaking given by the counsel for the respondent.

7. Therefore, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that, as per the arbitral award of Rs.11,36,51,125/-, the JDR-respondent herein ought to have deposited Rs.5,68,25,562/- for the stay to be in force. However, the respondent-JDR deposited only a meagre sum of Rs.39,67,756/-, in total, which is far less than what was ordered by the Apex Court and constituted less than 3.5% of the award amount .

8. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that arbitration application filed under Section 34 of the Act came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 07.02.2025, despite which, respondent had not deposited 50% of the amount as ordered by the Apex Court.

9. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the arbitration application under section 34 of the Act, the respondent preferred an appeal in COMAP No.125/2025 under Section 37 of the Act. It is now brought to the notice of this court that, even that said commercial appeal came to be disposed of on 21.11.2025 ma