IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2007 of 2026 ==========================================================

HARDIK FINTRADE PVT. LTD.

Versus NAYNABEN H BHAGAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR UDAY R BHATT(192) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 23/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The present petition invoking extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to challenge the order dated 30.12.2025, passed by the Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, in rejecting the objections filed by the award debtor, namely the petitioner herein, and directing it to pay the decretal amount, as mentioned in the execution petition, within two weeks, failing which necessary jangam warrant for the said amount be issued upon the award debtor.

2. Challenging this order, amongst various submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was argued in essence, that the execution petition was filed after a period of more than 22 years, and hence, it was barred by time. This objection raised by the petitioner in the application Exhibit-1 has been decided under the order impugned, noticing that the award was passed on 10.07.2003. An application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 challenging the award was filed in the year 2003, which remained pending uptil 09.04.2025, when it was dismissed on merits. The executing court further records that various objections, though were raised in the written objections filed by the learned advocate appearing for the award debtor, but the main objection as to the maintainability of the execution petition are two-fold; namely, the execution is not tenable before the commercial court as there is no commercial dispute. And the other was to the limitation that the execution application filed on 14.02.2025, after a period of more than 22 years, is liable to be rejected as time-barred.

3. As regards the objection as to the maintainability of the execution petition before the commercial court, it is recorded in the order impugned that since the application is filed for enforcement of the award, as per the arrangement made in the City Civil Court, such applications are being assigned to the commercial courts only. With regard to the second issue as to whether the pendency of application under Section 34 amounts to automatic stay for enforcement of the award under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the executing court had noted the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Construction Company Limited and Another v. Union of India reported in (2020) 17 SCC 324 wherein position of law as held in the case of National Aluminum Company Ltd. (NALCO) v. Pressteel &

Fabrications (P) Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2004 (1) SCC 540, has been clarified, stating that the law stated in NALCO (supra) that “there is automatic stay on filing of the application under section 34 was per incuriam”. It is noted by the executing court that upto 27.11.2019, due to the prevailing and existing legal position, due to the decision of the Apex Court in NALCO holding the field for automatic stay of the arbitral award on filing of an application under Section 34, it can be said that from 28.11.2019, the right to enforce the award was accrued for the award holder against the award debtor.

3. As regards the decision of the Apex Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Private Limited and Others reported in 2018 (6) SCC 287 delivered on 15.03.2018 heavily relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is noted that in the said decision, point of limitation was not adjudicated