The enforcement of an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be stalled solely due to an application for setting aside the award without a court-issued stay.

ORDER :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order passed by the learned Commercial Court on 31.12.2025 in an application filed by the petitioner/Award-holder in Execution Proceedings emanating from an Arbitral Award dated 16.07.2024. The petitioner sought for a direction on the respondent No.2/State Bank of India, Himmatnagar Branch, Secunderabad (Garnishee), to remit the CEP amount of Rs.605,07,94,064/- withheld in the respondent No.1/Award- debtor’s bank account along with interest at 12% per annum to the petitioner’s bank account, or in the alternative, a direction on the Garnishee Bank to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Commercial Court.

The impugned order records the relevant facts:

2. The Award was passed on 16.07.2024 in favour of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.584 crores along with interest at 12% per annum on the claim amount and against the respondent No.1/Union of India through Ministry of Railways, Railway Board/Award-debtor. The Award-holder and Award-debtor filed COP Nos.133 and 134 of 2024 respectively for setting aside of the Award.

3. The petitioner/Award-holder filed an application (COP No.133 of 2024) for setting aside of the Award to the extent of the claims which were rejected. The respondent No.1/Award- debtor filed COP No.134 of 2024 for setting aside of the Award to the extent of the Arbitral Tribunal allowing the claims of the petitioner and rejecting its counter claims.

4. The respondent No.1/Award-debtor filed IA No.1004 of 2024 in COP No.134 of 2024 for stay of the Award pending disposal of the COP but did not press the said IA as recorded in the docket order dated 19.03.2025.

5. On 03.03.2025, the Commercial Court passed an order in CEP No.14 of 2025 filed by the Award-holder, attaching the account of the Award-debtor in SBI to the extent of an amount of Rs.605,07,94,064/- (inclusive of interest as on the date of filing the CEP). The petitioner thereafter filed an application (CEA No.60 of 2025 in CEP No.14 of 2025) for a direction on SBI/Garnishee to remit/deposit the aforesaid amount along with interest at 12% per annum as on that date, to the petitioner’s bank account or in the alternative, for a direction to the Garnishee Bank to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Commercial Court.

6. The petitioner’s CEA No.60 of 2025 was closed by the impugned order dated 31.12.2025. The petitioner filed the present CRP aggrieved by the said order.

7. Senior Counsel has argued that the Commercial Court could not have closed the petitioner’s application in the Execution Proceedings solely on the ground of pendency of the two petitions (COP Nos.133 and 134 of 2024) filed for setting aside of the Award. Senior Counsel has argued on the position of the law under The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’), post the 2015 amendment which came into effect on and from 23.10.2015.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Award- debtor argues that the petitioner would not be prejudiced if the petitioner waits until the section 34 applications are decided. It is also argued that the Award-debtor cannot be directed to remit the amount of Rs.605 crores approximately since the amount consists of PF dues and LIC premium.

9. The Garnishee is not represented despite service of Court notice. The presence of the Garnishee, however, for the purposes of the present proceedings may not be required since the impugned order records the position taken by the Garnishee before the Commercial Court in Paragraph No.10 thereof. The impugned order records that the Garnishee filed a Memo on 04.04.2