Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,

CUTTACK

Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.21367 of 2025

(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950).

M/s KCS Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar …. Petitioner(s)

-versus-

M/s MECON Ltd., Jharkhand …. Opposite Party (s)

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suvendu Kumar Ray, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.

Along with Associates

Mr. Tanmoy Mishra, Adv.

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING:-16.09.2025

DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to

quash the order dated 01.07.2025 of the Commercial Court, Ranchi restraining release of the attached amount, and to direct the Commercial Court, Cuttack to issue warrant of attachment and

disburse the decretal sum in Execution Case No. 186 of 2023.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,

CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 (i) Opposite party no. 1, MECON Ltd., floated a Notice Inviting Tender dated 09.10.2009 (Invitation to Tender No. 11.41.A22PIERNR/Pkg No. 587521047) for erection, testing and commissioning of mechanical plant and equipment, refractory, buildings, technological structures, piping, unloading, storage, transportation of material at site, and supply of auxiliary materials and CGI sheeting for a 7M tall new Coke Oven Battery No. 6 at Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela; the petitioner, M/s KCS Pvt. Ltd., formed a consortium with M/s Rosy Enterprises, submitted its bid, and was issued an item-rate work order on 14.01.2010 with tentative quantities indicated and erection rates quoted against those quantities, the completion schedule being milestone-based and linked to handing over of the Nozzle Deck under Clause 4.0.

(ii) During execution of the work, disputes arose within the consortium and between the contractor and MECON; the petitioner issued a letter dated 29.12.2011 advising its consortium partner M/s Rosy Enterprises to stop completion of the balance work and, by a further letter dated 23.02.2012, communicated its decision to withdraw from its earlier commitment, following which MECON convened a meeting on 30.04.2012 with the petitioner and M/s Rosy Enterprises to discuss modalities of payment and amicable settlement, and subsequently entrusted the balance work to M/s Rosy Enterprises alone, which was jointly liable with the petitioner under the consortium arrangement.

(iii) The contract contained an arbitration clause under which disputes were referred to arbitration; on 02.09.2015 the petitioner invoked the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,

CUTTACK Date: 03-Dec-2025 18:46:02 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by filing an arbitration case, and in ARBP No. 20 of 2015 the High Court of Orissa, by order dated 11.01.2019, appointed Retired Hon’ble Justice Tapen Sen as sole Arbitrator, who conducted the arbitral proceedings (seated at Ranchi)

and on 26.03.2023 passed an arbitral award in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) The arbitration agreement is stated to contain a jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on courts at Ranchi; after the award dated 26.03.2023, MECON filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 24.06.2023 before the Commercial Court, Ranchi (registered as Commercial Arbitration Case No. 13 of 2023) seeking to set aside the award, while on 03.07.2023 the petitioner, as decree-holder, instituted Execution Case No. 186 of 2023 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-cum-Commercial Court, Cuttack under Order XXI read with Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for realization of the decretal amount.

(v) In the Section 34 proceedings at Ranchi, the petitioner entered appearance and raised a jurisdictional objection contending that the Ranchi Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction; by order date