CRP/1698/2026 of Government of Tamil Nadu Vs M/s. Prakash Constructions on 23 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department and the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, are the revision petitioners.

2. I have heard Mr.N.Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General, assisted by V.Prasad, learned Special Government Pleader, learned counsel for the revision petitioners in both the revision petitions and Mr.Muthuchharan Sundresh, learned counsel for the respondent in both the revision petitions.

3. The revision petitions are directed against the orders passed by the Executing Court in restoring E.P.Nos.27 and 28 of 2011 to file, by allowing E.A.No.2 of 2025 in both the above referred execution petitions, by order dated 19.02.2026.

4. The submissions of the learned Advocate General, Mr.N.Vijay Narayan, are as follows: The petitioners awarded two works contract to the respondent on 20.04.1998 for rehabilitation of Kondams Feeder Channels, tank under Palar Anicut System Package No.PAS MC 4 and for rehabilitation of East Main

Canal and its structure from L.S.6.25-51.96 under Poiney Anicut System in Walajah Taluk, Vellore District. However, disputes arose between the petitioners and the respondent and the respondent invoked the arbitration clause in the works contract. A sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by the respondent on 10.09.2003. Though the petitioners objected to the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator, by taking out an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In and by an order dated 08.07.2025, the sole arbitrator ruled on his own jurisdiction and rejected the objection of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners moved a civil suit in O.S.No.101 of 2005, seeking a relief of declaration that the arbitration proceedings before the sole arbitrator were null and void. However, the learned Advocate General fairly concedes that the said suit was not prosecuted and it came to be dismissed on 29.03.2007 by the learned Principal Judge Vellore.

5. Thereafter, the parties proceeded with the arbitration and two awards came to be passed on 26.06.2009, for a total sum of Rs.4.31 crores. In order to realize the amounts awarded to the respondent, the respondent filed two independent execution petitions on 25.01.2010, seeking to attach the movable and immovable properties of the revision petitioners. The said execution petitions were numbered as EP.Nos.43 and 44 of 2010 before the District Court, Vellore. However, subsequently, they were transferred to the II Additional District Court, Ranipet and renumbered as EP.Nos.27 and 28 of 2011.

6. On 05.03.2013, an ex-parte order of attachment of the properties of the revision petitioners came to be passed by the Executing Court in both EP.Nos.27 and 28 of 2011. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, with a delay of 497 days in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Act. The delay was initially condoned by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore on 01.09.2014 and the OPs were numbered as OP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014, respectively. However, the order condoning the delay was challenged at the instance of the respondent before this Court in CRP.Nos.36 and 37 of 2015 and this Court, by order dated 19.02.2016 set aside the order condoning the delay in filing the petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

7. Though the petitioners challenged the ex-parte order of attachment of their properties which was passed on 05.03.2013 in CRP.Nos.4036 and 4044 of 2014, admittedly both the revision petitions were not diligently prosecuted and the revision petitions came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. However, thereafter, the petitioners filed CMP.Nos.8072 and 8073 of 2018, seeking to restore CRP.Nos.4036 and 4044 of 2014 and the revision petitions were restored to file. Subsequently, in and by an order dated 28.01.2019, this Court dismissed the revision petitions, holding that the issue with regard to jurisdiction of the arbitral Tribunal cannot be raised in execution proceedings, after the award had attained finality and the same cannot be agitated before the Executing Court, by invoking Section 47 of the CPC. Challenging this order, the petitioners moved the Apex Court and in SLP.Nos.17508 and 17509 of 2019. By order dated 05.08.2019, the Apex Court, while directing the execution petitions to be proceeded unaffected, however, chose to grant leave on the question of law as to whether the issue of unilateral appointment of arbitrator can be agitated in execution proceedings. The special leave petitions were, in fact, converted as Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Nos.Nos.45748 & 48694 of 2024 and according to the learned Advocate General, the said civil appeals are yet to be heard and finally disposed of by the Apex Court.

8. On 10.01.2020, the Executing Court attached the properties of the petitioners and finding that the attached properties were insufficient to satisfy the amounts due to the respondent under the awards, the respondents filed applications to direct disclosure of assets of the petitioners in E.P.Nos.27 and 28 of 2011. In the meantime, the order attaching the properties of the petitioners was challenged by the petitioners before the Apex Court by filing IA.No.17446 of 2020. The said application was however dismissed by the Apex Court on 20.03.2020. Subsequently, the execution petitions filed by the respondent in EP.27 and 28 of 2011 came to be dismissed for the reason of non-filing of sale papers. To restore the said EPs to file, the respondent took out execution applications, before the Executing Court. Thereafter, on 21.01.2021, according to the learned Advocate General, the respondent filed two fresh execution petitions in EP.SR.Nos.2902 and 2903 of 2021, to enforce the awards, by detention of the Principal Secretary and the Superintendent Engineer in civil prison.

9. The Registry raised objections with regard to the fresh execution petitions and returned the same on 23.11.2021. Challenging the return of the execution petitions, the respondent moved this Court in CRP.Nos.2936 and 2937 of 2021. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners, as well as the counsel for the respondent, this Court disposed of the revision petitions on 04.02.2022, directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.24 crores in full quits of the awards, which were subject matter of the two execution proceedings, within a period of three months from 04.02.2022. This Court also directed that if the amount was not paid within the three months, then the Executing Court would be entitled to number the execution petitions, without raising any question regarding maintainability and proceed to decide the same strictly, in accordance with law. Admittedly, the petitioners did not pay the said sum of Rs.24 crores within three months from 04.02.2022. Therefore, the respondent filed Cont.P.No.1125 of 2022. Pending the contempt petition, the petitioners made a payment of Rs.23.04 crores on 11.07.2022, deducting 2% towards TDS and another 2% towards GST. According to the learned Advocate General, the respondent received the said amount, without any protest and also made an endorsement in the measurement book that there are no further dues from the Government. The said endorsement was made on 11.07.2022. Subsequently on 11.08.2022, Cont.P.No.1125 of 2022 was closed, recording the payment of Rs.23.04 crores.

10. It is at this juncture that there was a turn of events. The learned Advocate General would state that having received Rs.23.04 crores, without protest and despite having made an endorsement that there are no further dues from the petitioners, the respondent, with malafide intention, attempted to restore EP.Nos.27 and 28 of 2011. The Executing Court however dismissed the said execution petitions on 21.02.2023, by passing the following order: “This EP is of the year 2011, no substantial steps taken by the petitioners to proceed further in this matter, despite the order of this Court dated 31.01.2023, hence, EP is dismissed for non-prosecution, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner in any other proceedings”.

11. The respondent moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of a special leave petitions, challenging the orders passed in CRP.Nos.2936 and 2937 of 2021 dated 04.02.2022, in which revision petitions, this Court directed payment of Rs.24 crores in full quits of the awards in favour of the respondent. In fact, the special leave petitions were filed with delay and on 08.11.2024, the delay

was condoned and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, recording the order passed in CRP.Nos.2936 and 2937 of 2021, held that if the state had not paid the sum of Rs.24 lakhs, within the period of three months, then it is obvious that the Executing Court will have to number the execution petition, without raising any question of maintainability and decide the same, in accordance with law. Recording the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court felt that there was no necessity to interfere with the order passed by this Court in the revision petitions.

12. In so far as Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.48694 of 2024, after condoning the delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the disposal of the contempt petition by the High Court will not come in the way of the Executing Court entertaining the execution petition, in terms of Para 7 of the order dated 04.02.2022 in CRP.Nos.2936 and 2937 of 2021.

13. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.11.2024, the respondent filed EA.No.2 of 2025 in EP.No.28 of 2011, seeking condonation of a delay of 623 days in restoring the EP that was dismissed for default on 21.02.2023 and similar EA.No.2 of 2025 in EP.No.27 of 2011. The Executing Court, taking note of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.11.2024, condoned the delay and restored both EP.Nos.27 and 28 of 2011 to file. It is these orders that are presently under challenge before me.

14. The learned Advocate General, would firstly contend that having received the entire amount without protest and especially after having made a noting in the ledger that no further amounts are due from the petitioners, the respondent cannot had any axe to grind against the petitioners. Secondly, his submission is that the order passed by this Court on 04.02.2022, giving liberty was only in respect of two fresh execution petitions that have been initiated and were at SR stage and not giving liberty to restore E.P.Nos.27 and 28 of 2011 that came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 08.01.2021. The learned Advocate General would therefore state that the Executing Court has clearly fell in error in allowing the condone delay applications and restoring E.P.Nos.27 and 28 of 2011, which was never the letter and spirit of the order passed by this Court in CRP.Nos.2936 and 2937 of 2021. The learned Advocate General would also place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhadra International (India) Private Limited and others Vs. Airports Authority of India, reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 7, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an objection with regard to unilateral appointment of an arbitrator, can raised at any stage of the proceedings, including in collateral proceedings or at the stage of enforcement that is in execution proceedings. He would therefore state that the execution petitions were clearly not maintainable and the Executing Court fell in error in restoring E.P.Nos.27 and 28 of 2011.

15. Per contra, Mr.Muthuchharan Sundresh, learned counsel for the respondent would state that the receipt of the amount of Rs.23.04 crores without protest or any demur, was only in the context of the order passed in the revision directing payment of Rs.24 crores and therefore, it is his submission that merely because the amount was received in compliance with the order passed in the revision petitions, it does not take away the right of the respondent to seek recovery of the balance amount due, especially when the amount of Rs.24 crores was admittedly not paid within the time stipulated by this Court in the order dated 04.02.2022. He would in any event state that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court had specially directed the execution petitions to be proceeded with and admitted the special leave petitions on a question of law, leaving it open to be decided later, at the time of final hearing of the civil appeals, there was absolutely no impediment for the Executing Court to restore the EP to file. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed strong reliance on the order of this Court in CRP.Nos.2936 and 2937 of 2021 as well as the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.11.2024. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petitions.

16. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate General for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

17. I have already culled out the trajectory of the case in great detail herein above.

18. The short question that falls for considerations in these revision petitions is as to whether the payment of Rs.23.04 crores is in full and final settlement and satisfaction of the award amounts in favour of the respondent or not and whether the respondent is entitled to proceed with the execution petitions in line with the liberty granted by this Court in CRP.Nos.2396 and 2396 of 2021 and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 08.11.2024 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Nos.Nos.45748 & 48694 of 2024.

19. In order to appreciate the moot question that arises for consideration, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant orders. Paragraph No.7 of the order in CRP.Nos.2396 and 2397 of 2021 dated 04.02.2022 is extracted hereunder: “7.Therefore, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Government to pay a sum of Rs.24,00,00,000/- in full quit of the awards that are subject matter of the execution proceedings within a period of three months from today. No costs. If the amount is not paid within the three months, the executing Court is directed to number the execution petition without raising any question on maintainability and proceed with the same strictly in accordance with law. Any lenience shown by the Court, because the respondent is the Government would be viewed very seriously by this Court.”

20. The fact remains that Rs.24 crores as agreed upon by the parties was not paid within three months from 04.02.2022. Resultantly, the default clause incorporated in the order dated 04.02.2022 naturally kicks in and the Executing Court was entitled to number the execution petitions, without raising any question on maintainability and proceed with the same strictly in accordance with law.

21. It is admittedly after filing of a contempt petition, noticing default in payment by the petitioners that an amount of Rs.23.04 crores was paid. No doubt, it was received by the respondent without any protest or demur. However, it is after the contempt petition was closed, recording the payment of Rs.23.04 crores that the respondent again moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of two SLPs, which came to be disposed of on 08.11.2024. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held the petitioner to be entitled to recover the balance amounts payable to it in accordance with law and reaffirmed the direction issued by this Court to the Executing Court to number the execution petitions and dispose of the same in accordance with law. In this factual back ground, it is therefore clear that today it is not open to the petitioners to contend that the amount of Rs.23.04 lakhs has been paid in full settlement and satisfaction of the awards, especially since the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated 08.11.2024, has granted liberty to the respondent to move the Executing Court in view of the default committed by the petitioners in non compliance of the order dated 04.02.2022 in CRP.Nos.2936 and 2937 of 2021, notwithstanding the dismissal of the contempt petition.

22. However, at the same time, I find force in the submission of the learned Advocate General that liberty was given by this Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently, only to number the second set of execution petitions. Liberty was not given to the respondent to restore E.P.Nos.27 and 28 of 2011, which had already been dismissed for non prosecution. Admittedly, E.P.Nos.27 and 28 of 2011 were filed for attachment of the properties of the petitioners in order to realise the award amounts. Subsequent E.P.SR.Nos.2902 and 2903 of 2021 were filed for detaining the Principal Secretary and the Superintending Engineer in civil prison for default in complying with the award amount. The liberty granted by this Court was only to number the execution petitions, which clearly indicate that the liberty was pertaining to the fresh executions filed in E.P.SR.Nos.2902 and 2903 of 2021. This Court did not give liberty to the respondent to restore E.P.Nos.27 and 28 of 2011. The order of this Court was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well on 0811.2024, again reiterating that the Executing Court can number the execution petitions and dispose of the same in accordance with law. In the light of the above, I am inclined to dispose of the civil revision petitions in the following manner:

(i) The order dated 19.02.2026 in E.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.28 of 2011 in POCMC No.4 of 2009 and E.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.27 of 2011 in POCMC No.2 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Ranipet, are set aside. However, in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.11.2024 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Nos.Nos.45748 & 48694 of 2024, the Executing Court shall number E.P.SR.Nos.2902 and 2903 of 2021 expeditiously and after giving a fair opportunity to the petitioners to file their counter statement/objections, shall decide the said execution petitions on merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same, finally, within a period of three months from the date of numbering of the execution petitions.

(ii) In view of the orders passed in these revisions, CMP.Nos.10044 & 10040 of 2026 are closed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, viz., CMP.Nos.7816 & 7821 of 2026 are also closed. 23-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA The I Additional District Court, Ranipet.

P.B.BALAJI J. ATA CRP Nos. 1698 & 1699 of 2026 23-09-2026