Failure to assert jurisdictional challenges during arbitration prevents later claims of nullity, affirming the enforceability of an arbitration Award.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.

Appellant-Company has preferred these two intra-Court appeals calling in question two orders made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in two writ petitions filed by the Respondents. In W.P.(C) No.30966/2024, the challenge was to the arbitration Award dated 10.07.2023 entered by the Facilitation Council, Cuttack in MSEFC Case No.56/2022. This petition was allowed on 20.09.2025. In W.P.(C) No.20210/2025, the challenge was to the three orders dated 24.09.2024, 19.06.2025 & 14.07.2025 whereby Respondents’ resistant to execution came to be rejected.

2. FOUNDATIONAL FACT MATRIX.

2.1. Respondents had awarded a construction work at Paradip Refinery to the Appellant vide LOA dated 29.11.2017. Contract value was Rs.20,86,26,058.50 & contract period was 18 months reckoned from the date of LOA. There were certain issues relating to accomplishment of work. The contract was terminated vide letter dated 13.12.2018 and the work was entrusted to another contractor. This eventually resulted into Appellant filing MSEFC Case No.56/2022 u/s 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. He had sought an Award for a sum of Rs.6,65,97,975/- towards principal amount with interest accruing thereon.

2.2. After service of notice, the Respondents entered appearance in the arbitration proceeding and filed their Written Statement. Issues were framed and evidence was led. The Facilitation Council entered the subject Award for a sum of Rs.2,43,14,318/- along with future compound interest at commercial rates as have been notified by the RBI. Appellant had filed Exe. Petition No. 585/2023 before the Commercial Court, Bhubaneswar. The Respondents on 02.09.2024 filed objections u/s. 47 of CPC, 1908 to resist the execution on the ground that Award was a nullity. They were negatived vide order dated 24.09.2024. They had also urged as to non-executability of the Award on account of its being not stamped and that contention was rejected by the Executing Court vide order dated 19.06.2025. These two orders were challenged by the Respondents in W.P.(C) No.20210/2025. They had also filed ARBP No.11/2024 u/s 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. It was on 28.03.2024. Subsequently, this was unconditionally withdrawn on 21.10.2024. On 26.11.2024, respondents filed W.P.(C) No.30966/2024 under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India laying a challenge to the Award dated 20.09.2025. This has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. Appellant has preferred Writ Appeal No.1677/2025 for laying the challenge to the impugned order dated 20.09.2025 whereby arbitration Award has been set at naught. His companion case in Writ Appeal No.1856/2025 calls in question the orders of Executing Court whereby objections of the Respondents have been turned down vide order dated 22.09.2024. These appeals having contiguous fact matrix are placed at our hand.

3. CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES.

3.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently argues that the learned Single Judge has grossly erred in quashing the arbitration Award and the orders of Executing Court, inasmuch as at no point of time, the Respondents had pleaded before the statutory Arbitration Council that it had no jurisdiction over the matter; the Respondents having challenged the Award u/s 34 of A and C Act, 1996; the challenge was not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction; subsequently, they unconditionally withdrew the challenge; it was not open to the learned Single Judge to set at naught orders of the Executing Court, which had turned down objections of the Respondents to the enforcement of the Award. Counsel highlights the culpable conduct of the Respondents. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents makes fervent submission in support of the imp