Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 22-06-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – M/s Sri Balaji Metals And Minerals Pvt. Ltd., represented by Director Raghav Lakhotia, 23‑A Netaji Subhas Road, 3rd Floor, Kolkata. Respondents – South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), represented by (1) Chairman & Managing Director, SECL, Seepat Road, Bilaspur; (2) General Manager, Kusmunda Area, P.O. Kusmunda, District‑Korba; (3) Staff Officer (Mining), SECL, Kusmunda Area.
  • Petition: MCC No. 478 of 2026 filed seeking clarification/modification of the judgment dated 05‑05‑2026 (Arbitration Appeal No. 16/2022) which dismissed SECL’s appeal and vacated the interim order dated 03‑08‑2022.
  • Interim Order (03‑08‑2022): Directed SECL to deposit 50 % of the arbitral award (including interest up to July 2022) – amount Rs 11,53,34,343 – by cheque/demand draft to the Additional Registrar (Judicial). The deposited amount was to be fixed in a nationalised bank and renewed till disposal of the appeal. The remaining 50 % was to be secured by a bank guarantee of a nationalised bank, renewable one month before expiry. Security to be furnished within three weeks; stay of execution was ordered pending the appeal.
  • Arbitral Award: Dated 28‑01‑2020, affirmed by the Commercial Court, Nava Raipur (Case No. Arb.MJC 14 of 2020). The award became final after the appeal dismissal on 05‑05‑2026.
  • Petitioner’s Relief Sought: Release of the deposited amount with accrued interest and direction regarding the bank guarantee, arguing procedural ambiguity after the interim order was vacated.
  • Respondents’ Opposition: Asserted the petition is a review, not permissible under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC nor a correction under Section 152 CPC. Cited that the reliefs are execution‑related, to be dealt with under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act read with Order XXI CPC and Section 51 CPC. Referred to Supreme Court precedent Union of India v. Vedanta Limited (2020) 10 SCC 1, stating enforcement is a distinct proceeding. Noted pending Execution Case No. 5/2020 for realization of the same award, warning against duplication.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record; the application sought substantive directions beyond the scope of a review. The Court emphasized that after vacating the interim order, it is functus officio, and execution must proceed through the appropriate executing court as per CPC provisions.

Final Outcome

  • The petition is dismissed with costs.
  • The petitioner is directed to approach the learned Executing Court for execution of the decree in accordance with Section 51 CPC and Order 21 Rules 30‑31 CPC.
  • If any grievance remains, the petitioner may file a fresh petition for redressal.

Topics: Court Proceedings, Arbitration Enforcement, Deposit Release