The jurisdiction for executing an arbitral award can be addressed at any stage, emphasizing the need for proper forum adjudication.

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the orders dated 29.11.2022 and 16.12.2022, whereby, in execution of the award dated 7.4.2018 passed by the sole arbitrator in between M/s. Associated Software Consultancy Vs. Raipur Municipal Corporation, the bank accounts of the petitioner - Corporation have been attached. Therefore, the petitioner by way of this petition prays to release the attached Bank Accounts in its favour without deducting any amount.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner - Municipal Corporation had invited tenders for maping surveying and tax assessment with geographical information systems and respondent No.1 being the successful tenderer was awarded the work agreement dated 18.2.2002. In the said agreement, a dispute occurred, which was referred to the sole arbitrator, who passed the award dated 7.4.2018 in favour of respondent No.1 to the tune of Rs.2,27,79,729/- along with the interest @ 9% per annum along with the other reliefs. The petitioner initially challenged the award before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.5.2019 passed in Arbitration Reference No.11/2019 with liberty to file a duly constituted appeal before the Commercial Court at Raipur. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a duly constituted appeal before the Commercial Court, Raipur on 23.7.2021, which was dismissed on the sole ground of delay vide order dated 7.5.2022 and the said order was also challenged before the Division Bench of this Court, which again stood dismissed vide order dated 27.7.2022 in Arbitration Appeal No.19/2022 and the said dismissal was affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.36061/2022 vide order dated 13.12.2022. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 filed an application on 8.12.2020 for execution of the arbitral award before the Commercial Court, Raipur and on 6.5.2022, the concerned respondent also filed an application for attachment of the Bank Accounts of the petitioner - Corporation. The petitioner filed their objections under S.47 of the CPC on 02.06.2022. However, the Commercial Court while dismissing the objections of the petitioner, vide order dated 29.11.2022, also directed respondents 2 and 3 - Banks for attaching the Bank Accounts of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 7 crores and further, vide order dated 16.12.2022, directed the respondent - Banks to remit the amount of Rs.7 crores from the petitioner's Bank Accounts to the Commercial Court by way of demand draft. Being aggrieved by such order, this petition has been filed.

4. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned order is patently illegal as the Commercial Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute in question. He vehemently emphasized that only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the execution case and the Commercial Court has no power under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 along with the Code of Civil Procedure , to execute any award. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order(s) is dehors the jurisdiction and is coram non judice and hence, it is in the nature of ity. He prays to quash the impugned order dated 29.11.2022 including the order and letter dated 16.12.2022 issued to the respondent - Banks.

5. Per contra, Mr. Vikram Dixit, learned counsel for respondent No.1, would submit that learned counsel for the petitioner has never raised such issue before the Commercial Court that it does not have power of execution. However, he contended that such Court h