The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a comprehensive mechanism for arbitration, and the CPC's role in enforcement is limited, emphasizing the distinction between an Arbitral Award and a decree.

ORDER :

(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against an order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the learned Commercial Court at Hyderabad. The impugned order was passed in CEA No.1 of 2024, which was filed by the petitioners under section 47 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , for dismissal of the Execution Petition (CEP No.25 of 2019) filed by the respondent. The Commercial Court dismissed the petitioners’ application by way of the impugned order.

2. The petitioners are the Judgment-debtors and the respondents in an arbitration which culminated in an Award dated 27.02.2019. The respondent/claimant is the Award- holder having been awarded Rs.140,89,01,800/- for claim No.1 and Rs.39,50,00,000/- as bonus annuity along with interest @ 12% per annum for a specified period. The arbitration arose out of a Concession Agreement dated 17.08.2007 entered into between the petitioners and the respondent for Design, Construction and Maintenance of an 8-lane access controlled expressway under Phase II-A Programme as an extension of the Outer Ring Road to Hyderabad City, from Kollur to Patancheru from KM 12 to KM 23.7 on Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) (Annuity) basis. The Arbitration Clause was contained in Clause 39.2 of the Concession Agreement.

3. The relevant and undisputed facts leading to the petitioners’ filing of the application under section 47 of the CPC, in the Execution Petition filed by the respondent, are as follows:

4. The Arbitral Award was passed on 27.02.2019 awarding various sums to the respondent. On 16.09.2019, the respondent/Award-holder filed CEP No.25 of 2019 for enforcement of the Award before the Commercial Court at Hyderabad under section 36 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act). The petitioners/Judgment-debtors filed COP No.72 of 2019 under section 34 of the 1996 Act for setting aside the Award dated 27.02.2019. This COP was dismissed by the Commercial Court on 21.03.2022. The petitioners filed a Commercial Court Appeal (COMCA No.8 of 2023) under section 37 of the 1996 Act against the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the Commercial Court dismissing the petitioners’ COP. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 in COMCA No.8 of 2023 for stay of the Award dated 27.02.2019. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated 17.10.2023, granted stay of execution of the Award subject to the petitioners’ depositing 50% of the amount awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the order. COMCA No.8 of 2023 is pending before this Court.

5. Admittedly, the petitioners failed to deposit 50% of the awarded amount as directed by the Division Bench as a condition for stay of execution of the Award.

6. The petitioners also filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 in COMCA No.8 of 2023 for recalling of the order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench whereby the petitioners had been granted conditional stay. I.A.No.2 of 2023 was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench on 05.01.2024. The Co-ordinate Bench further directed that I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2023, for amendment of pleadings and for filing of additional documents, respectively, shall be considered at the time of hearing of the Appeal. The petitioners challenged the order dated 05.01.2024 before the Supreme Court. The petitioners’ Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.8477-8478 of 2024 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 09.04.2024.

7. The petitioners filed CEA No.1 of 2024 in CEP No.25 of 2019 under section 47 of the CPC (which deals with questions to be determined by the Court executing decree). This CEA was dismissed by the Commercial Court by way of the impugned order dated 09.12.2024. The order dated 09.12.2024 forms the subject matter of the present C.R.P.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/Judgment-debtors argues that the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court, dismissing the petitioner’s application under section 47 of the CPC warrants interference.

9. Learned Senior Counsel app