The execution of an arbitral award may proceed despite pending appeals unless a stay is expressly granted; writ jurisdiction is not an avenue for private arbitration disputes absent substantial legal questions.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 17.9.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Khurda, in Exn. (P)No.1000 of 2022. By the impugned order, the Commercial Court directed the Registrar, Civil Courts, Khurda at Bhubaneswar to release the deposited award amount of Rs.8,71,12,761/- (kept in fixed deposit vide TDR No.41910141012) along with accrued interest in favour of present Opposite Party No.2.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The petitioner is Paradip Port Authority, a statutory body, which had invited tenders for installation of large-scale solar panels. Pursuant to the tender process, the bid submitted by the opposite party No. 2, M/s. Surana Solar Ltd., was accepted and a letter of intent was issued on 28.11.2016. Disputes thereafter arose between the parties in relation to the execution of the contract, which were referred to arbitration.

3. The Ld. Arbitral Tribunal passed its award on 8.4.2021, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 8,69,34,723/- to the opposite party No. 2 within a period of three months from the date of the award, failing which interest at the rate of 9% per annum was to accrue from the date of the award until realisation. The petitioner did not comply with the award within the stipulated time.

4. Challenging the arbitral award, the petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Bhubaneswar on 30.5.2022. The said proceeding was registered as ARBP No. 19 of 2022.

5. Separately, the opposite party No. 2 initiated Execution Petition No. 1000 of 2022 for enforcement of the award. The present Petitioners did not enter appearance in the said matter and the Executing Court u/s 36 of the Act, upon considering the conduct of the Petitioners, set them ex parte on11.1.2023 and passed order attaching the bank account of the Petitioners to the extent ofthe awarded amount, which was duly attached on 12.1.2023.

6. It appears that the Opposite Party No. 2 had suspected further litigation and had therefore filed a caveat before this Court with respect to the order of attachment. However, the Petitioner did not file a Civil Miscellaneous Petition and preferred W.P.(C) No. 2133 of 2023, which required no caveat notice to be served on the Opposite Party No. 2.

7. Thereafter, without being properly informed, on 25.1.2023, in W.P.(C) No. 2133 of 2023 this Court directed the Petitioner to deposit the entire decretal amount before the Registry for stay of further proceeding of Execution Case No. 1000 of 2022.

8. Aggrieved, the present Opposite Party No. 2 mentioned the matter and the order dated 25.1.2023 was subsequently modified by this Court vide it’s order dated 28.2.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 2133 of 2023 wherein this Court was pleased to direct that the interim order of stay would continue for three weeks only. The Petitioner was given liberty to seek continuance of the same thereafter directly before the Ld. Commercial Court with notice to the Opposite Party No. 2. In compliance with the said direction, the petitioner deposited the awarded sum, which was kept in fixed deposit along with accrued interest.

9. There appears to be some inordinate delay because the present Petitioner did not seek any extension of t