The court held that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to address arbitration matters, affirming the exclusive domain of Commercial Courts under the relevant legal frameworks.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner, in the present writ petition, challenges the orders dated 19.05.2022, 25.08.2022 and 06.02.2023 passed by the District Judge, Sambalpur, in Execution Proceeding No. 28 of 2011.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) UCO Bank issued a tender for major repair works of its Staff Quarters located at Sector 21 Colony, Rourkela. The Respondent emerged as the successful bidder for certain civil works at the said premises.

(ii) During the execution of the contract, the Premises Maintenance Committee, constituted in accordance with the terms of the contract, identified certain defects which the Respondent was obligated to rectify. However, the Respondent failed to address these defects and proceeded to submit the final bill through the architect, claiming a sum of ₹66,54,197.46.

(iii) Subsequently, on 27 February 2008 and again on 7 April 2008, the Respondent invoked Clause 49 of the General Conditions of Contract arising from Work Order No. SAMR/GAD/Premises/686/04.05 dated 28 June 2004, pertaining to the repair work at Sector 21, Rourkela, and sought reference to arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(iv) On 16 May 2008, the Respondent requested the appointment of Late Justice D.M. Pattnaik as the sole arbitrator, and he was duly appointed to adjudicate the dispute. The solearbitrator passed an award on 11 August 2010, allowing the Respondent’s claims.

(v) The Petitioner challenged the arbitral award before the District Judge, Sundergarh, by filing ARBP No. 13 of 2010 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The District Judge, Sundergarh, dismissed ARBP No. 13 of 2010 on 31 March 2022, upholding the arbitral award on merits.

(vi) The Petitioner challenged the District Judge’s order dated 31 March 2022 before this Court by filing ARBA No. 29 of 2022 under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This Court, by order dated 27 June 2022, set aside the judgment of the District Judge.

(vii) Meanwhile, in Execution Case No. 28 of 2011, the District Judge, Sambalpur, by order dated 19 May 2022, directed the Petitioner to deposit a sum of ₹5 lakhs as a condition for staying further proceedings.

(viii) Subsequently, on 2 August 2022, the respondent petitioned for withdrawal of the ₹5 lakhs deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the release, citing the pendency of Arbitration Case No. 15 of 2022 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

(ix) On 22 August 2022, the Petitioner filed an application seeking transfer of the Section 34 petition and Execution Case to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Commercial Court, Sambalpur.

(x) By order dated 25 August 2022, the District Judge, Sambalpur, stayed the execution proceedings, subject to the Petitioner depositing a sum of ₹5 lakhs as security, with liberty to the Respondent to seek release of the amount on grounds of restitution.

(xi) The said order was challenged by the Petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 26104 of 2022. By order dated 11 October 2022, operation of the impugned order was stayed. Subsequently, by order dated 20 January 2023, this Court permitted withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition.

(xii) Thereafter, by order dated 6 February 2023, the District Judge, Sambalpur, permitted release of the amount of ₹5 lakhs to the respondent.

(xiii) The Petitioner, by petition dated 3 March 2023, opposed the respondent’s application for withdrawal of the deposited amount and sought dismissal of the execution case on the ground of maintainability.

(xiv) By order dated 3 March 2023, the District Judge allowed the petitioner’s petition dated 22 August 2022, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and directed the parties to appear before the Senior Civil Judge, Commercial Court, Sambalpur.

(xv) Consequently, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 19 May 2022, 25 August