Court emphasizes equity in execution of arbitral awards under challenge, mandating expedited resolution of related petitions while staying execution proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

S.B. PD. SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K Shahi, learned Advocate General for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior advocate for the respondent.

2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filled against the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Patna in Execution Case No. 144 of 2022 (arising out of Old Execution Case No. 406 of 2018), whereby, the petitioner, a government undertaking was directed to deposit the entire awarded amount along with interest. By the impugned order, the order of attachment of the property and machinery belonging to the award debtor/petitioner was directed to be issued.

3. In the present petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

(i) Set aside the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Patna in Execution Case No. 144 of 2022;

(ii) Stay the operation of the impugned order and all consequential proceedings in Execution Case No. 144 of 2022 during the pendency of the present petition;

(iii) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled under law and in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

4. The learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the learned Arbitral Tribunal by its award dated 13.02.2018 had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 55,42,63,240/- in favour of respondent. The aforesaid amount was directed to be paid within 90 days from the date of award, failing which simple interest @ 12% per annum would accrue until realization. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said award has filed Arbitration Case No. 75 of 2018 under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 on the substantial ground which, prima facie establishes patent illegality of the award dated 13.02.2018. The petitioner has also filed an application under Section 36 of the Act for stay of the operation of Arbitral Award dated 13.02.2018.

5. Learned Advocate General further argues that petitioner has already paid Rs. 45,09,57,683/- (75% of the awarded sum) to the respondent and the said payment has dully been acknowledged by the respondents in its supplementary affidavit but despite such acknowledgment, the learned Executing Court, by the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 has directed the petitioner to deposit the entire awarded amount along with interest, which is wholly erroneous, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law.

6. It is further argued that while passing the impugned judgment, learned Executing Court has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3640-3642 of 2025 which is wholly misplaced as the said decision pertains to execution proceedings where the award/decree had already attained finality upon adjudication up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court but in the present case, the arbitral award dated 13.02.2018 is still under substantive challenge at the very first instance under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment cannot be mechanically extended to the present proceedings. The arbitral award itself discloses substantial grounds of patent illegality and contravention of public policy, which are pending for judicial scrutiny and therefore, the impugned direction requiring the petitioner to deposit the entire awarded amount along with interest at this premature stage is arbitrary, inequitable and without jurisdiction.

7. He further submits that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3640-3642 of 2025 is confined to cases where the ar