The High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside coercive execution orders passed by the Commercial Court that compelled personal appearance, affidavits, and threatened contempt proceedings against government officers for non-payment of a final arbitral award, holding such directions exceeded jurisdiction under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Background & Facts
The Genesis of the Dispute
The Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), accorded administrative and technical sanction for construction of a two-lane road on various stretches of NH-63 (Old NH-16) in District Bastar under the Left Wing Extremism (LWE) Scheme, initially for Rs. 169.23 crores, subsequently revised to Rs. 211.53 crores. The project was wholly funded by the Government of India, with the State Public Works Department, Chhattisgarh acting as the executing agency.
Key Facts
- The respondent/contractor ECI-Keystone (JV) was declared the successful bidder pursuant to tender process, with letter of acceptance issued on 31.10.2012
- Work order dated 01.12.2012 was issued
- The respondent completed the work on 30.06.2019
- On 27.01.2020, the respondent raised an additional claim of Rs. 190.33 crores, which was rejected by the department
- Consequently, the respondent invoked the arbitration clause and sought appointment of a sole arbitrator
- Shri Rangraju was appointed as the sole arbitrator on 10.08.2020, and arbitral proceedings commenced on 20.08.2020
- During arbitral proceedings, State authorities repeatedly requested MoRTH to provide an authorised representative and legal assistance
- By communications dated 19.03.2021 and 19.07.2021, MoRTH directed that the dispute be resolved through conciliation or before a panel of three arbitrators, requiring approval of competent authority
- The respondent declined to participate in conciliation proceedings and insisted on continuation before the sole arbitrator
- In the absence of authorised representation and statement of defence on behalf of the State, the sole arbitrator proceeded ex parte and rendered an award dated 02.09.2022 directing payment of Rs. 160,30,11,411/- to the respondent along with applicable interest
- The respondent thereafter initiated execution proceedings before the learned Commercial Court, registered as Execution Case No. 06 of 2023
Procedural History
- 01.11.2023: Petitioners challenged the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act; application dismissed as barred by limitation
- 10.06.2024: Challenge to the said order under Section 37 of the Act dismissed by this Court in Arbitration Appeal No. 51/2023
- 19.01.2026: Special Leave Petition preferred against the said order dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on ground of delay of 484 days in institution
- 23.07.2024: During pendency of execution proceedings, petitioners raised objection under Section 47 of the Arbitration Act read with Section 151 of CPC; allowed by learned Commercial Court, execution petition dismissed
- 04.07.2025: Said order challenged by respondent in W.P.(227) No. 691/2024; allowed by this Court
- 10.02.2026: Challenge to said judgment before Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 28500/2025 dismissed
- 30.04.2026: Learned Executing Court passed order directing personal appearance of Engineer-in-Chief and Chief Engineer, PWD to apprise efforts undertaken for immediate payment of award amount
- 14.05.2026: Learned Executing Court passed order fixing case for personal appearance of Engineer-in-Chief, PWD and concerned Chief Engineer, PWD
- 22.05.2026: Learned Executing Court passed order directing award-debtor to file detailed affidavit disclosing bank accounts, project-wise accounts, funds received, balances and receivables
- 01.06.2026: Learned Executing Court passed order granting last opportunity to award-debtor to make payment of award amount to award-holder
- 16.06.2026: Learned Executing Court passed order fixing matter for further proceedings
- 22.06.2026: Learned Executing Court passed order directing personal appearance of Secretary, PWD, Engineer-in-Chief and Chief Engineer, PWD to show-cause why matter should not be referred to Hon’ble High Court for initiation of contempt proceedings
- 17-09-2026: Date of judgment under analysis
Relief Sought
The petitioner/State prayed for: i. Calling for entire records pertaining to the impugned orders passed by the Learned Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Level) Nava Raipur in Execution Case No. 06/2023 ii. Issuing appropriate writ of certiorari by setting aside the impugned orders dated 30/04/2026, 14/05/2026, 22/05/2026, 01/06/2026 and 22/06/2026 passed by the Learned Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Level) Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Execution Case No. 06 of 2023 between parties ECI-Keystone (JV) Vs. The Superintending Engineer iii. Cost of the petition be allowed iv. Any other relief deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Executing Court, while executing an arbitral award under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, exceeded its jurisdiction by directing personal appearance, affidavits, and threatening contempt proceedings against government officers who are not personally liable under the award, particularly when the award-debtor is a State department and the liability arises from the award itself.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner/State
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders passed by the learned Executing Court are wholly without jurisdiction and travel beyond the powers conferred upon an executing court under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act read with Order XXI CPC. It was contended that the arbitral award is a money award and its execution is governed by Order XXI CPC, particularly Rule 30 thereof. The petitioners had placed before the Executing Court details of the accounts and properties of the award-debtor, thus if the award is to be enforced, the Executing Court may adopt any mode prescribed under CPC, including attachment and sale of property, but cannot compel individual officers to satisfy the award from personal resources or make them personally responsible for non-payment. It was emphasized that the entire project was funded by MoRTH under the LWE Scheme and the State PWD was merely the executing agency; the sanctioned budget had already been utilised, so concerned officers cannot make payment without obtaining necessary sanction and following governmental procedure. Officers had been continuously corresponding with MoRTH for arranging payment, and a proposal had been placed before the State Cabinet for necessary approval. Thus, there was neither wilful disobedience nor deliberate refusal to comply; delay was attributable to procedural requirements governing release and utilisation of public funds. The Executing Court cannot compel officers to bypass statutory and administrative procedures merely because interest continues to accrue on the awarded amount.
For the Respondent/Award-Holder
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the arbitral award dated 02.09.2022 has attained finality, the challenge thereto having been rejected at every stage and the Special Leave Petition arising therefrom having been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, there remains no legal impediment in enforcement of the award and the award-debtor cannot indefinitely postpone its satisfaction on the pretext of pursuing review proceedings or seeking further administrative approvals. It was submitted that the award amount of Rs. 160,30,11,411/- had escalated to Rs. 2,22,06,54,058/- as on 16.06.2026 solely on account of continued non-payment, with interest accruing at approximately Rs. 4.5 lakhs per day. Despite repeated opportunities and assurances before the learned Executing Court, including the categorical statement made by the Engineer-in-Chief on 22.05.2026 that payment could be ensured pursuant to a specific direction of the Court, the petitioners had failed to make payment. The plea that the State PWD is merely an executing agency of MoRTH or that budgetary approvals are awaited cannot furnish justification for frustrating a final and executable award. The internal arrangements between State Government, PWD and MoRTH are matters inter se and cannot prejudice the vested rights of the award-holder. Repeated correspondence with MoRTH and subsequent proposal placed before State Cabinet had not resulted in any concrete step towards payment. Even after the last opportunity granted on 01.06.2026, the State had merely placed before the Court a communication regarding the Cabinet decision, which did not disclose any definite arrangement for satisfaction of the award. The conduct of the award-debtor demonstrated not a genuine inability to comply but a persistent unwillingness or failure to take effective steps, resulting in substantial and continuing loss to the public exchequer. The award-holder cannot be compelled to indefinitely wait while State authorities deliberate upon internal financial or administrative arrangements, particularly when liability is crystallised and interest burden continues to increase daily.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the impugned orders in light of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and relevant Supreme Court precedents. It held that Section 36 makes the award enforceable in accordance with the provisions of the CPC in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. Consequently, the Executing Court is required to enforce the award in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Order XXI CPC. The Court reiterated that an executing court cannot travel beyond the decree or adopt a mode of execution not sanctioned by law, and the Supreme Court has consistently maintained that while an executing court must be diligent in securing the fruits of the decree, it must execute the decree as it stands and in accordance with law.
The Court referred to R.N. Dey and Others v. Bhagyabati Pramanik and Others (2000) 4 SCC 400, where the Supreme Court cautioned that the weapon of contempt should not be used for execution of a decree where an alternative remedy in law is provided for. It noted that in Food Corporation of India v. Sukh Deo Prasad (2009) 5 SCC 665, it was held that contempt jurisdiction under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC is not intended for enforcement of money decrees or directions/orders for payment of money. The process and concept of execution is different from the process and concept of action for disobedience/contempt. In Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307, the Court held that the remedy for non-compliance with terms of a decree is to approach the execution court under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, not contempt proceedings, as law does not permit skipping remedies available under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC to resort to contempt proceedings when an effective alternative remedy exists. Further, in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Dr Manoj Kumar Sharma (2021) 7 SCC 806, it was held that a practice has developed in certain High Courts to call officers at the drop of a hat and exert direct or indirect pressure, which is not appreciable as it seeks to cross the line of separation of powers between judiciary and executive.
The Court found that the Executing Court was certainly entitled to ascertain from competent departmental authorities the steps being taken for implementation of the award. However, an affidavit filed by an officer explaining administrative or financial position cannot, by itself, be treated as an undertaking creating a personal obligation to discharge the liability of the award-debtor. Equally, a statement made during hearing by an officer regarding possibility or expected timeframe of obtaining sanction cannot be converted into a personal decree against that officer. If the department has made a categorical submission that payment is subject to governmental sanction, budgetary allocation or approval by competent authority, the Court may examine the bona fides and adequacy of steps taken and require the competent authority to place relevant record before it. However, it cannot proceed on the basis that such submission must necessarily result in personal liability of the officer if payment is not made within the time indicated.
Regarding the observations in the order dated 22.06.2026 describing review petitions pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as “hoping against hope”, the Court held that the petitioners may or may not ultimately succeed in review proceedings; that question is exclusively within the domain of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Executing Court was concerned with enforcement of the award and was not called upon to express an opinion on the merits or prospects of a pending proceeding before the superior Court. The expression “hoping against hope” was therefore unnecessary and ought not to have formed part of the order under challenge. The pendency of review petitions does not by itself operate as a stay of the award; therefore, the award-holder remains entitled to proceed with execution unless there is an order of stay from the competent Court.
The Court concluded that the impugned orders, insofar as they require personal affidavits/undertakings from officers, threaten to fix personal financial liability upon them for the amount of interest accruing on the award, or contemplate initiation of contempt proceedings merely for non-payment of the money award, cannot be sustained. To that extent, the said directions are set aside, and the writ petition is partly allowed. However, the execution of the arbitral award shall continue, and the learned Executing Court shall proceed with execution strictly in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration Act read with Order XXI CPC and pass appropriate orders by adopting modes of execution permissible in law.
The Verdict
The writ petition was partly allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.04.2026, 14.05.2026, 22.05.2026, 01.06.2026 and 22.06.2026 passed by the learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Nava Raipur, in Execution Case No. 06 of 2023, insofar as they required personal appearance, affidavits and threatened contempt proceedings against government officers, were set aside. The Court clarified that execution of the arbitral award shall continue, and the learned Executing Court shall proceed with execution strictly in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, adopting modes of execution permissible in law. No orders as to costs were passed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Execution Must Follow Statutory Procedure
This judgment reinforces that executing courts must adhere strictly to the procedure prescribed under Order XXI CPC for money awards, including arbitral awards made enforceable under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. Executing courts cannot innovate execution methods that create personal liability on officers who are not judgment-debtors under the award. Practitioners should ensure that execution applications focus on attaching and selling property of the award-debtor, not compelling individual officers to furnish personal undertakings or face contempt threats.
Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Substitute for Execution
The Court reiterated the settled principle that contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC is not a substitute for execution when an alternative remedy in law exists. For money decrees, the remedy is execution, not contempt. Lawyers opposing execution must challenge the executability of the decree through proper execution proceedings, not by inviting contempt jurisdiction which is punitive in nature and intended only for maintaining court dignity, not enforcing monetary liabilities.
Government Departments Enjoy Procedural Protections
When the award-debtor is a government department or authority, the executing court may require the competent authority to disclose position regarding assets, funds, sanctions or steps taken for satisfaction of the award, but cannot compel individual officers to use personal resources. The judgment clarifies that delays attributable to procedural requirements for release and utilisation of public funds do not constitute wilful disobedience. Practitioners representing government departments should highlight internal approval processes and budgetary constraints as legitimate reasons for delay, while award-holders must demonstrate that such delays are not genuine attempts to frustrate execution.
Finality of Award Does Not Expand Executing Court's Jurisdiction
The judgment confirms that once an arbitral award attains finality (as this award did after rejection of all challenges), the award-holder is entitled to seek enforcement, but this does not enlarge the jurisdiction of the executing court beyond the statutory framework. Executing courts must resist pressure to adopt coercive measures merely because interest continues to accrue; their role is to facilitate execution through lawful means, not to create new liabilities or pressure points outside the CPC framework.
