Orissa High Court
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs M/S. Subash Chandra Kanchan …. … on 18 July, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 19952 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., .... Petitioner(s)
Bhubaneswar
-versus-
M/s. Subash Chandra Kanchan .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mr. U.C. Mohanty, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Mohanty, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Jatindra Kumar Mohapatra, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-08.05.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -18.07.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to
set aside the impugned orders dated 24.02.2024 and 28.06.2024 passed
by the Commercial Court, Bhubaneswar, and to remand the matter for
proper adjudication of objections under Section 47 CPC.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Page 1 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
(i) A Sole Arbitrator, Mr. B.C. Bhattacharya, passed an award in favour of
the Opposite Party (Contractor), granting ₹24,78,311.40 under Claim
Nos. 68(I) to 68(XXII) along with ₹50,000/- as cost. Interest was also
awarded at various rates (15% and 18%) on specified claims and a post-
award interest of 18% per annum if payment was not made within 90
days.
(ii) The award was challenged by BSNL under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was dismissed by the District Judge,
Khurda on 22.02.2018. Thereafter, BSNL accepted the award and issued
a letter dated 01.06.2018 offering to settle the awarded amount,
calculated by BSNL at Rs. 73,53,287 as on 30.06.2018.
(iii) The Opposite Party responded with its own calculation dated
07.06.2018, claiming Rs. 1,73,39,341.14, creating a dispute over
applicable interest rates and computation.
(iv) On 03.07.2018, BSNL invoked Clause 29-A of the contract to withhold
Rs. 41,85,995/- from the decretal amount, citing a pending liability
under a separate arbitration award dated 25.05.2016 (Agreement No.
28/CDB/98-99), which was under challenge in ARBP No. 34/2016.
(v) BSNL tendered a cheque dated 15.11.2018 for ₹31,91,349/- to the Opp.
Party. The Opp. Party refused to accept the cheque, citing
conditionality and lack of deposit before the executing court.
(vi) The Opposite Party filed Execution Case No. 444/2018 on 10.07.2018
under Section 36 of the A&C Act, seeking execution of the award.
Notice was served on BSNL only on 01.07.2023 due to delay in curing
defects.
Page 2 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
(vii) The Opp. Party filed a fresh calculation sheet on 29.01.2024, stating a
total due of Rs. 1,30,86,549.66. BSNL objected to this on 15.02.2024
under Section 47 CPC, particularly opposing the inclusion of Rs.
2,41,051/- under Claim No. 68(iii), where only Rs. 18,998/- had been
awarded.
(viii) The Executing Court accepted the Opp. Party’s calculation sheet by
order dated 24.02.2024. BSNL’s recall petition dated 22.03.2024 was
dismissed on 28.06.2024, leading to the filing of the present writ petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Executing Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction by directing
execution of ₹2,41,051/- under Claim No. 68(iii), despite the arbitral
award having expressly limited the award under this head to ₹18,998/-
, thereby violating the settled principle that an executing court cannot
go behind the decree.
(ii) The Petitioner has rightfully exercised its contractual lien under Clause
29-A of the General Conditions of Contract to withhold ₹42,24,189/-
from the awarded dues, in view of pending dues recoverable under a
separate contract, and such withholding, being contractually
sanctioned, carries no obligation to pay interest.
(iii) The tender of ₹31,91,349/- through cheque dated 15.11.2018 was
wrongly refused by the Opp. Party, and under Order XXI Rule 5 CPC,
interest on the said amount must be held to have ceased from the date
Page 3 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
of such refusal, disentitling the Opp. Party from claiming any further
interest on the tendered amount.
(iv) The writ petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution
as the impugned orders dated 28.06.2024 and 29.01.2024 are not
appealable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, being
orders neither falling within the scope of Order XLIII CPC nor within
Section 37 of the A&C Act.
(v) The Executing Court has failed to adjudicate the objections filed under
Section 47 CPC with due application of mind, and has arbitrarily
accepted the Opp. Party’s inflated calculation sheets, ignoring the
existence of a subsisting cross-decree and the mandatory requirement
of set-off under Order XXI Rule 18 CPC.
(vi) The Opp. Party delayed removal of defects in the Execution Petition for
nearly five years, yet has been permitted to compute interest for this
period, resulting in manifest unjust enrichment contrary to equity and
settled law that disentitles a negligent decree-holder from such benefit.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions
(i) The Writ Petition challenges the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the
Commercial Court, Bhubaneswar in Execution Petition No. 444/2018,
rejecting the Petitioner’s application for recall of the earlier order dated
24.02.2024 which had accepted the calculation sheet of the Opp. Party.
Page 4 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
(ii) The award in favour of the Opp. Party dated 05.08.2009 reached finality
after dismissal of the Section 34 challenge by the District Judge, Khurda.
The amount awarded has, thus, acquired the status of a decree.
(iii) The Petitioner had earlier proposed settlement by letter dated
01.06.2018, but without attaching calculations or an unconditional
cheque. The Opp. Party replied with its own calculations on 07.06.2018
which the Petitioner did not accept.
(iv) The Petitioner unilaterally withheld ₹41,85,995/- citing Clause 29-A of
the contract, based on an unrelated arbitration award passed by a
different arbitrator in a different contract (Agreement No. 28/CDB/98-
99), which is still under challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration
Act.
(v) The cheque for Rs.31,91,349/- dated 15.11.2018 was allegedly sent by
BSNL but not deposited in court. The Opp. Party refused to accept it on
the ground that the Petitioner had imposed conditions requiring a full
and final settlement undertaking.
(vi) The calculation sheet dated 29.01.2024 was filed by the Opp. Party to
update the executable amount in conformity with the arbitral award,
and after considering objections of BSNL, the court accepted the
calculations on 24.02.2024.
(vii) The Petitioner’s subsequent recall application dated 22.03.2024 was
rejected by the court on 28.06.2024, leading to the present writ petition.
(viii) The Opp. Party claims the attempt to raise cross-claims based on a
pending arbitral proceeding (ARBP No. 34/2016) has no nexus with the
award under execution and is thus inadmissible.
Page 5 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
(ix) No part of the decree under execution can be modified or reduced by
importing extraneous claims from other proceedings; the only award
in question has attained finality and must be executed as such.
(x) The narrative of cross-claims, pending proceedings, or internal
communications within BSNL are irrelevant and extraneous to the legal
issue under adjudication in the writ petition.
IV. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: (i) Whether the Executing Court acted without jurisdiction in allowing
execution of ₹2,41,051/- under Claim No. 68(iii), despite the arbitral
award specifically awarding only ₹18,998/- under the said head.
(ii) Whether BSNL was legally entitled to withhold ₹42,24,189/- from the
awarded amount by invoking Clause 29-A of the General Conditions
of Contract in light of a pending arbitral claim in a separate contract.
(iii) Whether interest on ₹31,91,349/- ceased to run from 15.11.2018 under
Order XXI Rule 5 CPC, upon BSNL’s alleged tender of the said amount
by cheque and the Opp. Party’s refusal to accept the same.
(iv) Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the
Constitution, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 13 of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, in the absence of an appealable order
under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
(v) Whether the Executing Court committed a jurisdictional error in
rejecting the Petitioner’s objections under Section 47 CPC and in failing
to consider the effect of a cross-decree and the applicability of set-off
under Order XXI Rule 18 CPC.
Page 6 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
(vi) Whether the Opp. Party is entitled to claim interest for the period
during which the Execution Petition remained defective and
unattended (2018-2023), and whether allowing such computation
results in unjust enrichment.
V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents
placed before this Court.
6. The Opposite Party (Contractor) was awarded ₹24,78,311 plus ₹50,000
as costs in an arbitral award dated 05.08.2009, under Claim Nos. 68(I)
to 68(XXII), with interest at 15% and 18% on specified claims, and post-
award interest at 18% p.a. if unpaid after 90 days. BSNL challenged the
award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, but the
petition was dismissed on 22.02.2018. Subsequently, BSNL attempted a
settlement by offering ₹73.53 lakh as of 30.06.2018, but the Opposite
Party disputed this, claiming ₹1,73,39,000 as due. The dispute centered
around interest rates and calculation methods. On 03.07.2018, BSNL
invoked Clause 29A of the contract, withholding ₹41.85 lakh (later
revised to ₹42.24 lakh) due to a pending liability in another arbitration.
BSNL tendered a cheque of ₹31,91,349 on 15.11.2018, but the Opposite
Party refused it due to conditions and failure to deposit the amount in
court. The Opposite Party filed Execution Petition No. 444/2018 on
10.07.2018, but the notice to BSNL was issued only on 01.07.2023 after
curing defects. On 29.01.2024, the Opposite Party filed a fresh
calculation of ₹1,30,86,549.66, which BSNL contested under Section 47
CPC on 15.02.2024, alleging incorrect computation of Claim 68(iii). The
Page 7 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
Executing Court accepted the Opposite Party’s calculation on
24.02.2024, and BSNL’s recall application was dismissed on 28.06.2024.
7. Now that the factual matrix of the case is clear, this Court shall address
each issue in turn.
I. Whether the Executing Court acted without jurisdiction in allowing
execution of ₹2,41,051/- under Claim No. 68(iii), despite the arbitral
award specifically awarding only ₹18,998/- under the said head.
8. It is undisputed that the arbitral award itself fixed Claim No. 68(iii) at
Rs. 18,998. In the execution calculation, however, the Opposite Party
insisted on execution of Rs. 2,41,051 for Claim 68(iii), an amount far
exceeding the awarded sum. Law in this regard is well settled. An
executing court must give effect exactly to the decree or award and it is
bound to act in terms of the decree/award. There are a plethora of
judicial precedents affirming this stance. One such precedent is that of
the Supreme Court in the case of Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v.
Rajabhai Abdul Rehman1 wherein it was held as follows:
“6. A court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree:
between the parties or their representatives it must take the
decree according to its tenor, and cannot entertain any
objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts.
Until it is set aside by an appropriate proceeding in appeal
or revision, a decree even if it be erroneous is still binding
between the parties.”
1
(1970) 1 SCC 670.
Page 8 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
9. A similar stance was taken by the Supreme Court in the case if Mumtaz
Yarud Dowla Wakf v. M/s Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd.2
wherein it was held as follows:
“The legal principle that an Executing Court cannot go
beyond the decree stands fortified, subject to the rigor of
Section 47 read with Order XXI of the Code. As a matter
of course, an Executing Court is enjoined with the duty to
give effect to the decree. Any interference, including on a
question involving jurisdiction, should be undertaken very
sparsely as a matter of exception. The onus lies heavily on
the judgment-debtor to convince the Court that a decree is
inexecutable. When an exercise is likely to involve a factual
adjudication, it should better be avoided.”
10. In the present case, allowing execution of Rs. 2,41,051 on a claim
decreed at Rs. 18,998 is beyond the decree’s bounds and thus beyond
jurisdiction. There is no plausible basis (e.g. addition of interest or
costs) to justify the inflated amount. It appears as a calculation error or
overstatement. The executing court’s acceptance of the decree-holder’s
sheet and direction to pay Rs. 2,41,051 on Claim 68(iii) was therefore
ultra vires. This is a manifest jurisdictional error and a grave injustice
to BSNL. The execution order on this point must be set aside.
II. Whether BSNL was legally entitled to withhold ₹42,24,189/- from the
awarded amount by invoking Clause 29-A of the General Conditions
of Contract in light of a pending arbitral claim in a separate contract.
11. The next issue pertaining to the case in hand is in relation to
Contractual Lien under Clause 29A. This clause of the GCC empowers
BSNL to withhold contract payments due to the contractor in order to
2
2023 INSC 949.
Page 9 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
satisfy claims in other contracts. The relevant excerpts of this Clause are
produced below:
“Clause 29A- Lien in respect of claims in other contracts
Any sum of money due and payable to the contractor
(including the security deposit returnable to him) under
the contract may be withheld or retained by way of lien by
the Engineer-in-Charge or the Government or any other
contracting person or persons or through Engineer-in-
Charge against any claim of the Engineer-in-Charge of
Government or such other person or persons in respect of
payment of a sum of money arising out or under any other
contract made by the contractor with the Engineer-in-
Charge or of the Government or with such other person or
persons.
It is an agreed term of the contract that the sum of
money so withheld or retained under this clause by
the Engineer-in-Charge or the Government will be
kept withheld or retained as such by the Engineer-in-
Charge or the Government or till his claim arising out
of the same contract or any other contract is either
mutually settled or determined by the arbitration
clause or by the competent court, as the case may be and
that the contractor shall have no claim for interest or
damages whatsoever on this account or on any other
ground in respect of any sum of money withheld or retained
under this clause and duly notified as such to the
contractor.” (Emphasis Supplied)
12. In plain terms, BSNL could retain the Rs. 42,24,189 because of
outstanding claims (and arbitrations) in other work orders. Such clause
has been upheld as a lawful contractual lien by courts. For instance, the
Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India v. Shapoorji Pallonji
and Co. Pvt. Ltd.3 interpreted a similar Clause 29, observing that it
3
LPA 206/2019 & CM Nos. 13660-63/2019.
Page 10 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
enables the Government to withhold money pending adjudication of
any such claim. The Delhi High Court quoted the judgment of the
single judge bench which read as follows:
“Sub-clause (i) of Clause 29 of the GCC enables the
Government to withhold sums due and payable to the
contractor on account of any claim pending adjudication of
such claims… It is clearly incumbent on the Government
to take steps for adjudication of such claims and in the
absence of taking any such steps the question of invoking
Clause 29(i) of the GCC for withholding any amount would
not arise.”
13. The Delhi High Court, in affirming the judgment, categorically held
that Clause 29 could only be invoked where the Government had
initiated steps for adjudication, such as filing of counterclaims in
arbitration or instituting a suit. The failure to initiate such adjudicatory
process disentitles the employer from relying on the lien provision.
Importantly, in that case, CPWD’s demand was premised on a PAC
report and not on a pending legal proceeding, which the Court held
insufficient to invoke Clause 29.
14. In contrast, BSNL in the present case has substantiated its withholding
by reference to a separate arbitration award dated 25.05.2016
(Agreement No. 28/CDB/98-99), which is currently under challenge in
ARBP No. 34/2016. This demonstrates that the claim for which the lien
is being exercised is not speculative or administrative in origin, but one
grounded in a formal adjudicatory process.
15. Moreover, Clause 29A, like its CPWD counterpart, expressly states that
the contractor shall have no claim for interest or damages in respect of
Page 11 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
such withholding, provided the same is duly notified. In the present
case, BSNL’s invocation of the clause was communicated on 03.07.2018
and the precise withheld amount was quantified and explained. Hence,
the requirement of due notification has been fulfilled.
16. Therefore, the invocation of Clause 29A in the facts of the present case
not only satisfies the text of the clause, but also the judicial threshold
articulated by the Delhi High Court in Shapoorji (Supra). It must be
held that the Executing Court erred in treating BSNL’s lien as a non-
existent or irrelevant factor. The amount withheld was not in
derogation of the arbitral award, but in exercise of a parallel contractual
right expressly preserved and recognized by courts.
17. Accordingly, this Court finds that BSNL was well within its contractual
rights in withholding Rs. 42,24,189 under Clause 29A of the GCC, and
that such withholding did not attract any obligation to pay interest nor
did it constitute an act of bad faith or evasion of the arbitral award. The
Executing Court’s failure to consider this aspect amounts to an error
apparent on the face of the record and warrants interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution.
III. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the
Constitution, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 13 of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, in the absence of an appealable order
under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
18. The third issue arises from the tender of Rs. 31,91,349/- by BSNL via
cheque dated 15.11.2018, and the question is whether this act was
Page 12 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
sufficient to stop the accrual of interest under Order XXI Rule 5 of Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Rule reads:
“Where a decree directs payment of money, the payment
may be made by the judgment-debtor into the court whose
duty it is to execute the decree, or out of Court to the decree-
holder by postal money order or through a bank or by any
other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing; and,
in such cases, interest shall cease to run from the date of
service of notice of such payment to the decree-holder, or
the date of tender, whichever is earlier.”
19. Judicial interpretation of this provision makes it clear that tender of
payment, even if not accepted by the decree-holder, is deemed valid so
long as it is unconditional and evidenced in writing. In the present case,
BSNL issued a cheque dated 15.11.2018 in favour of Opposite Party,
which was refused on the ground that it was conditional and not
deposited in court. However, there is no cogent evidence before the
Court to establish that BSNL’s tender was in fact conditional in law.
Even assuming there was some language expressing a preference for
“full and final settlement,” the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v.
Union of India4, held that where the judgment-debtor deposits or
tenders an amount in discharge of the decree, interest ceases to run
from such date, provided the decree-holder is not prevented from
accepting it. The relevant excerpts are produced below:
“Thus, in cases of execution of money decrees or award
decrees, or rather, decrees other than mortgage decrees,
interest ceases to run on the amount deposited, to the extent
of the deposit. It is true that if the amount falls short, the
decree holder may be entitled to apply the rule of4
(2006) 8 SCC 457Page 13 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19appropriation by appropriating the amount first towards
the interest, then towards the costs and then towards the
principal amount due under the decree. But the fact
remains that to the extent of the deposit, no further interest
is payable thereon to the decree holder and there is no
question of the decree holder claiming a re-appropriation
when it is found that more amounts are due to him and the
same is also deposited by the judgment debtor. In other
words, the scheme does not contemplate a reopening of the
satisfaction to the extent it has occurred by the deposit. No
further interest would run on the sum appropriated
towards the principal.”
20. The Supreme Court’s judgment in MP Trading and Investment RAC
Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India 5 further fortifies this principle. In
para 4 and 5 of the judgment, the Court held as follows:
“4. In the present case, we find that the amount was to be
deposited in a fixed deposit at the request made by the
respondent and it is not seen that the respondent has made
any request before the High Court for withdrawal of the
amount deposited as per the directions by the High Court.
However, it is submitted that the appellants have not
deposited the full amount in terms of the award.
5. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are
of the view that the appellants shall be entitled to interest
as per award from the date of award till the principal
amount was deposited in the High Court on 3-3-2003.
From the said date of 3- 3-2003 till it was withdrawn, the
respondent shall be entitled only to the interest accrued on
the principal amount in terms of the fixed deposit made as
per the direction by the High Court. However, the
respondent shall be entitled to the interest in terms of the
award on the balance of the award amount which the
appellants failed to deposit in Court, as per the award.”
5
(2009) 2 SCC 513.
Page 14 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
21. Applying the aforementioned judicial precedents to the facts of the
present case, it is clear that the tender by BSNL of Rs. 31,91,349/- via
cheque dated 15.11.2018 satisfies the requirements under Order XXI
Rule 5 CPC. The cheque, accompanied by a covering letter, was a
written and evidenced form of tender. There is no indication that BSNL
imposed any legally binding pre-condition or extracted any waiver of
rights in exchange for acceptance of the payment. Even assuming that
the tender letter suggested the payment be considered in full and final
settlement, the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that such
phraseology, unless expressly made conditional to extinguish the
decree-holder’s remaining rights, does not vitiate the tender for the
purposes of stopping interest accrual.
22. Further, the refusal of the decree-holder to accept the cheque cannot
retrospectively invalidate the tender, particularly when there is no legal
bar or pending stay preventing the decree-holder from encashing the
amount. In this context, the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Ramacivil
India Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India6 is instructive. The
Court held that where a decree-holder fails to withdraw an amount
deposited in court or refuses an available tender, interest does not
continue to accrue merely because of such non-withdrawal.
23. In the facts at hand, BSNL’s tender of Rs. 31,91,349/- on 15.11.2018, even
if not deposited in court, constituted a valid tender in terms of Order
XXI Rule 5 CPC. The refusal by the Opposite Party, without sufficient
cause, does not disentitle BSNL from the benefit conferred by the Rule.
6
2023 SCC OnLine Del 6669.
Page 15 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
Consequently, interest on the said sum must be held to have ceased
from the date of the tender, i.e., 15.11.2018.
24. The Executing Court, however, continued to allow interest
computation on this sum until 2024, which is clearly impermissible in
light of the above judicial precedents. This amounts to an error
apparent on the face of the record, and has resulted in an inflated and
legally unsustainable dues computation to the prejudice of the
Petitioner. The impugned orders, insofar as they fail to take cognizance
of this legal effect of tender, warrant interference under Article 227 of
the Constitution.
IV. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the
Constitution, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 13 of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, in the absence of an appealable order
under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
25. The fourth issue is in relation to maintainability of writ under Article
227. BSNL relies on Article 227 to challenge interlocutory execution
order. Although Section 13 CCA bars appeals except those specified,
like appeals under Order XLII CPC and Section 37 A&C Act, it does not
expressly oust writ jurisdiction. Here, the orders impugned are not
appealable under Order XLIII or Section 37, they interlocutory
execution matters, so no statutory remedy exists. In such cases, High
Courts routinely allow Article 227 petitions to prevent miscarriage of
justice.
Page 16 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
26. The scope of Article 227 has been outlined Estralla Rubber v. Dass
Estate Pvt. Ltd.7 wherein it was held as follows:
“6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and
jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is examined and explained in a
number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power
under this article involves a duty on the High Court
to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the
bounds of their authority and to see that they do the
duty expected or required of them in a legal manner.
The High Court is not vested with any unlimited
prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong
decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction
of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this
power and interfering with the orders of the courts or
tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction
of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental
principles of law or justice, where if the High Court
does not interfere, a grave injustice remains
uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High
Court while acting under this article cannot exercise
its power as an appellate court or substitute its own
judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to
correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of
the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the
findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is
no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse,
that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a
conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.
7. This Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co.
Ltd. v. Ram Tahel Ramnand [(1972) 1 SCC 898 : AIR
1972 SC 1598] in AIR para 12 has stated that the
power under Article 227 of the Constitution is
intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate
cases, for the purpose of keeping the subordinate
7
AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 3295.
Page 17 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19courts and tribunals within the bounds of their
authority and, not for correcting mere errors.
Reference also has been made in this regard to the case
Waryam Singh v. Amarnath [AIR 1954 SC 215 : 1954
SCR 565] . This Court in Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v.
Laxmibai R. Tarte [(1975) 1 SCC 858 : AIR 1975 SC 1297]
has observed that the power of superintendence under
Article 227 cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact
which only a superior court can do in exercise of its
statutory power as a court of appeal and that the High
Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227
cannot convert itself into a court of appeal when the
legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. Judged by
these pronounced principles, the High Court clearly
exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 in passing the
impugned order.” (Emphasis Supplied)
27. This Court agrees with this stance. There is no alternative forum for
BSNL; its objections in execution have been disposed of, and Section 13
does not grant a right to appeal these specific orders. Therefore, this
writ is maintainable. Of course, interference will be limited to glaring
jurisdictional or legal errors, but those appear on these facts.
V. Whether the Executing Court committed a jurisdictional error in
rejecting the Petitioner’s objections under Section 47 CPC and in
failing to consider the effect of a cross-decree and the applicability of
set-off under Order XXI Rule 18 CPC.
28. The 5th issue pertains to objections under Section 47 and set-off. Section
47 of CPC mandates that all questions arising between the parties to the
suit relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree
shall be determined by the executing court itself and not by a separate
suit. The provision embodies the principle that the executing court is
not a mere post office, but is bound to examine issues of executability
Page 18 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
raised by the judgment-debtor, if they are within the scope of the decree
and its satisfaction. The statutory mandate is clear: where a legitimate
execution-related dispute is raised, the court must apply its mind and
render a reasoned adjudication.
29. In the present case, BSNL filed a detailed objection under Section 47
CPC raising the following substantial issues:
a) First, that the calculation sheet submitted by the Opposite Party
sought an execution of an amount of Rs. 2,41,051/- under Claim
No. 68(iii), whereas the award had categorically restricted this
claim to Rs. 18,998/- thereby resulting in execution beyond the
decree.
b) Second, that BSNL was entitled to invoke Clause 29-A of the
General Conditions of Contract to withhold ₹42,24,189/- from the
awarded sum in light of a pending counterclaim arising out of a
separate arbitration involving the same contractor, which was
under challenge in ARBP No. 34/2016.
c) Third, and most crucially, BSNL submitted that a claim for set-off
arose under Order XXI Rule 18 CPC by virtue of the cross-liability
owed by the Contractor under a different arbitral award.
30. The Executing Court, by a brief order dated 24.02.2024, dismissed these
objections without any substantial engagement with the contentions.
Such an omission defeats the very object of Section 47 CPC and renders
the order vulnerable to interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution.
Page 19 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
31. Turning to the legal framework, Order XXI Rule 18 CPC provides the
machinery for adjustment or set-off where two cross-decrees exist
between the same parties and are both capable of execution by the same
court. The bare text of the rule reads:
“(1) Where applications are made to a Court for the
execution of cross-decrees in separate suits for the payment
of two sums of money passed between the same parties and
capable of execution at the same time by such Court, then–
(a) if the two sums are equal, satisfaction shall be entered
upon both decrees; and
(b) if the two sums are unequal, execution may be taken out
only by the holder of the decree for the larger sum and for
so much only as remains after deducting the smaller sum,
and satisfaction for the smaller sum shall be entered on the
decree for the larger sum as well as satisfaction on the
decree for the smaller sum.
…”
32. Sub-rule (3) further clarifies that the rule applies only when:
“(a) the decree-holder in one of the suits in which the
decrees have been made is the judgment-debtor in the other
and each party files the same character in both suits; and
(b) the sums due under the decrees are definite.”
33. In the present case, BSNL asserted that a cross-claim had matured into
an award in its favour dated 25.05.2016, under Agreement No.
28/CDB/98-99, and that such award was the subject of a Section 34
challenge in ARBP No. 34/2016. The Court notes that while the award
may not yet have become a decree for the purposes of Rule 18(1), the
objection was not speculative. The award was rendered by a duly
appointed arbitrator and challenged in accordance with law. The
amount awarded to BSNL was definite, and the parties were identical.
Page 20 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
34. The Executing Court ought to have, at the very least, addressed the
question of whether Rule 18 applied and whether the preconditions
under sub-rule (3) were satisfied or not. Even if the court was to
ultimately hold that Rule 18 was inapplicable due to lack of concurrent
decree status, it was nonetheless incumbent on the court to reason
through that conclusion under Section 47. Failure to do so amounts to
non-application of mind and dereliction of statutory duty.
35. However, this Court clarifies that for a set-off to be permissible under
Order XXI Rule 18 CPC, both the decrees, i.e., the one under execution
and the one claimed in set-off, must be final, executable money decrees
capable of being executed by the same court. A pending arbitral award,
even if definite in terms, cannot qualify as a “decree” for the purposes
of Rule 18 until it is either converted into a decree under Section 36 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or otherwise attains
enforceable status. Therefore, unless BSNL’s arbitral award is
converted into a decree and becomes executable, the plea for legal set-
off under Order XXI Rule 18 CPC cannot be sustained.
36. That said, the Executing Court cannot summarily reject the Section 47
objection without examining its legal tenability in light of the applicable
requirements under Rule 18. Even if the claim ultimately fails due to
absence of a decree, the Court was duty-bound to evaluate the plea and
record findings. By refusing to examine the objections raised under
Section 47, particularly on (a) erroneous calculations, (b) the right of
withholding under Clause 29-A, and (c) the set-off mechanism under
Order XXI Rule 18, the Executing Court essentially denied BSNL an
Page 21 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
opportunity of hearing on core execution-related matters. This goes
beyond a mere irregularity and amounts to a jurisdictional defect
warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
VI. Whether the Opp. Party is entitled to claim interest for the period
during which the Execution Petition remained defective and
unattended (2018-2023), and whether allowing such computation
results in unjust enrichment.
37. The final issue of this case pertains to the accrual of interest on Money
Decrees until payment or tender. Under CPC, a judgment-debtor
remains liable for post-decree interest on a money decree untile the
decree is fully satisfied by payment or a valid tender/deposit in terms
of law. Order XXI Rule 1 CPC specifies the modes of paying a money
decree, and makes clear that interest ceases only when the amount is
actually paid to the decree-holder or unconditionally deposited with
notice to the decree-holder. In other words, mere delay in execution or
inactivity by the decree-holder does not stop the clock on accruing
interest; the onus is on the judgment-debtor to either pay the decretal
amount or deposit it in court with proper notice if it wishes to halt
further interest.
38. Importantly, even depositing the amount in the court is not enough per
se; it must meet the requirements of Order XXI Rule 1. The Supreme
Court in the case of P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar v. O.R.M.P.R.M.
Ramanathan Chettiar8 explained that a conditional deposit (such as
one made merely to obtain a stay of execution) is not a “payment” that
8
1968 AIR 1047
Page 22 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
discharges the decree; thus interest continues to run until the decree-
holder is free to withdraw the money. In that case, the judgment-debtor
had deposited the amount in court to seek a stay, but the deposit was
conditional (the decree-holder could only withdraw against security).
The Court held as follows:
“15. The last contention raised on behalf of the respondent
was that at any rate the decree-holder cannot claim any
amount by way of interest after the deposit of the money in
court. There is no substance in this point because the
deposit in this case was not unconditional and the decree-
holder was not free to withdraw it whenever he liked even
before the disposal of the appeal. In case he wanted to do so,
he had to give security in terms of the order. The deposit
was not in terms of Order 21 Rule 1 CPC and as such, there
is no question of the stoppage of interest after the deposit.”
39. In the present case, BSNL’s tender of the decretal amount on 15.11.2018
is crucial. Under the above provisions, interest on the decree continued
to accrue up to that date, because prior to 15.11.2018 BSNL had neither
paid the amount to the Contractor nor made any unconditional deposit
with notice that would satisfy Order XXI Rule 1. BSNL’s argument that
the decree-holder’s slow pursuit of execution should somehow stop the
running of interest finds no support in law. Nothing in the CPC
suggests that a decree-holder loses the right to statutory interest by
mere inactivity. So long as the decree remains unsatisfied and within
the period of enforceability, interest (if awarded in the decree) is a
lawful accretion intended to compensate for delay in payment. The
Contractor’s execution application may have had procedural defects or
Page 23 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
lay dormant for a time, but those procedural lapses do not extinguish
BSNL’s substantive liability under the decree to pay principal and
accruing interest.
40. Such stance was affirmed by the Delhi High Court in the case of M/S
Bhandari Engineers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Maharia Raj Joint
Venture and Ors.9 wherein it held as follows:
“The Executing Court shall pass appropriate order of
restitution to reimburse the loss suffered by the decree-
holder on account of delay and obstruction in the execution
proceedings caused by the judgment- debtor. The
Executing Court shall endeavour to place the decree-holder
in the same position as he would have had been if the decree
had been satisfied soon upon it being passed.”
41. In practical terms, that means the decree-holder should be made whole,
including receiving the interest due for the period the payment was
delayed, unless the decree is lawfully satisfied earlier. Here, BSNL only
effectively attempted satisfaction on 15.11.2018; hence interest is rightly
calculated up to that date (when the tender was made), and not
curtailed by the decree-holder’s earlier inactivity.
42. BSNL’s contention that the Contractor obtained an “undeserved
windfall” by letting interest run till 2023 misconstrues the purpose of
post-decree interest. Interest on a decree is not a penalty or punitive
measure; it is compensation for the true owner’s inability to use their
money during the period of delay. The Supreme Court has eloquently
clarified this in recent decisions. In Authorised Officer Karnataka Bank
9
EX.P. 275/2012 & E.A. 193/2020.
Page 24 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
v. M/s R.M.S. Granites Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.10 the Court explained that if
party A owes money to party B at a certain time but pays it years later,
A would have had the use of that money in the interim and could earn
interest on it, while B was deprived of that opportunity. The Court held
as follows:
“It may be mentioned that there is misconception about
interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all,
but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example
if A had to pay B a certain amount, say ten years ago, but
he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed
the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that
amount to B ten years ago, B would have invested that
amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but
instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and
earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands
that A should not only pay back the principal amount but
also the interest thereon to B.” (Emphasis Supplied)
43. In similar vein, the Allahabad High Court aptly explained the concept
of interest in the case of Hello Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India11 as
follows:
“15. We may mention that we are passing the direction for
interest since interest is the normal accretion on capital.
Often there is misconception about interest. Interest is not
a penalty or punishment at all.
16. For instance, if A had to pay a certain sum of money to
B at a particular time, but he pays it after a delay of several
years, the result will be that the money remained with A
and he would have earned interest thereon by investing it
somewhere. Had he paid that amount at the time when it
was payable then B would have invested it somewhere, and10
Civil Appeal No. 12294 of 2024.
11
(2004) 174 ELT 422.
Page 25 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
earned interest thereon. Hence, if a person has illegally
retained some amount of money then he should ordinarily
be directed to pay not only the principal amount but also
the interest earned thereon.”
44. Denying the decree-holder interest for the period of BSNL’s non-
payment would actually reward the delay by allowing BSNL to use that
money interest-free. This is the opposite of “unjust enrichment”. If
anyone stood to be unjustly enriched by the delay, it would be the
judgment-debtor (BSNL) unless interest accrues. The law steps in to
prevent such unjust benefit.
45. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Poornima Advani v. Govt.
of NCT of Delhi12 citing one of its landmark judgments held as follows:
“In the case of Union of India through Director of Income
Tax v. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2014) 6 SCC 335, this Court
held that when the collection is illegal, the Revenue is
obliged to refund such amount with interest as money so
deposited was retained and enjoyed by it. No
discrimination can be shown between the assessee and
Revenue in paying interest on the refund of tax. Money
received and retained without right, carries with it the right
to interest. There being no express statutory provision for
payment of interest on the refund of excess amount/tax
collected by the Revenue, the Government cannot shrug off
its apparent obligation to reimburse the deductors lawful
monies with accrued interest for the period of undue
retention of such monies.”
46. Applying these principles to the present case, the Contractor is not
claiming anything beyond the decree’s terms. He is only claiming the
lawful interest on the award amount up to the date BSNL finally made
12
2025 INSC 262
Page 26 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
a valid tender. There is no legal requirement that a decree-holder
“chase” the judgment-debtor to avoid forfeiting interest; to the
contrary, the executing court should protect the decree-holder’s right
by making the debtor bear the costs of delay, not the creditor. BSNL
cannot evade interest by pointing to the decree-holder’s slow execution
when BSNL itself allowed the decree to remain unpaid. The proper
course for a judgment-debtor who wishes to stop further interest is to
promptly pay or deposit the amount in court (with notice), which BSNL
eventually did in November 2018, and notably, interest was stopped
from that date as the Contractor acknowledges. Prior to that tender,
however, BSNL had not discharged its liability, so the interest meter
rightly kept running.
47. The accusation of “unjust enrichment” against the Contractor fades
away in light of the above legal position. The Contractor’s enrichment
is not “unjust” at all; it is sanctioned by the decree and the CPC. He is
entitled to be made whole for the delay in receiving the money that was
adjudged due to him. As noted by the Supreme Court in R.M.S.
Granites (Supra), it is the normal accretion on capital and a part of the
restitutive process. It ensures that the decree-holder is compensated for
being kept out of his money, and that the judgment-debtor does not
profit from withholding payment. In fact, denying the decree-holder
interest for the period of BSNL’s inaction would result in an
unwarranted boon to BSNL, allowing it to use the money for free.
Indian courts have repeatedly emphasized that a party who wrongfully
Page 27 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
withholds money must compensate the rightful owner with interest, to
prevent unjust benefit from retention of money.
48. In the present scenario, interest accrued on the decree only until
15.11.2018, which is the date BSNL finally made the amount available
(by tender/deposit). From that day forward, BSNL’s liability to pay
interest ceased because it took the step that law requires to stop further
accrual (a valid tender of payment). But for the period before that
tender, when BSNL neither paid the decretal sum nor deposited it
unconditionally, the continuing accrual of interest is a matter of legal
right, not a bonus.
49. The executing court is bound to enforce the decree as it stands,
including the interest component and has no discretion to deprive the
decree-holder of interest on the notion that he slept on his rights. This
stance was reiterated by the Delhi High Court in the case of M/S
Bhandari (Supra) wherein it held as follows:
“The Executing Court shall pass appropriate order of
restitution to reimburse the loss suffered by the decree-
holder on account of delay and obstruction in the execution
proceedings caused by the judgment- debtor. The
Executing Court shall endeavour to place the decree-holder
in the same position as he would have had been if the decree
had been satisfied soon upon it being passed.”
50. In sum, there is no legal or equitable basis to trim the Contractor’s
interest up to the 2018 tender. The continuing interest up to the date of
payment (or valid tender) is expressly contemplated by Order XXI and
by authoritative precedents. What BSNL labels as a “windfall” is
Page 28 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19
merely the sum total of what the court awarded and what the law
provides as compensation for delay. The Contractor is not being
enriched beyond the decree’s terms; he is receiving the time-value of
the money that was rightfully his but remained unpaid until 2018.
BSNL, having delayed the satisfaction of the decree, cannot now invoke
equity to avoid paying interest that accrued due to its own lapse. Equity
and law alike favor the diligent decree-holder’s right to be fully
indemnified for the wait. Thus, there is no question of unjust
enrichment here, only the enforcement of the decree in accordance with
its terms and the CPC. The executing court would be correct in
awarding interest up to 15.11.2018 (the tender date) to the Contractor,
and BSNL remains liable for that interest by operation of law.
VI. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTION:
51. Upon comprehensive consideration of the factual matrix and the legal
issues raised, this Court is of the opinion that:
a. The Executing Court committed a jurisdictional error in allowing
execution for Rs. 2,41,051 under Claim 68(iii), when the award
clearly specified only ₹18,998. An executing court has no
authority to expand the scope of the award.
b. BSNL was within its contractual rights to withhold Rs. 42,24,189
under Clause 29A of the General Conditions of Contract. This
right was duly invoked with notice, and the withheld amount
corresponded to an adjudicated claim that was under challenge.
Such withholding does not attract any liability for interest nor
constitutes deviation from the decree.
Page 29 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19c. Interest on the tendered sum of Rs. 31,91,349 must be held to have
ceased from 15.11.2018. The cheque was a valid tender, and the
decree-holder’s refusal cannot revive interest beyond that date.
d. The Executing Court failed to discharge its duty under Section 47
CPC. It dismissed BSNL’s objections without substantive
adjudication, especially overlooking the asserted right of set-off
under Order XXI Rule 18. That omission vitiates the execution
process and warrants correction.
e. The claim of unjust enrichment by the Contractor due to delay in
execution proceedings is unsustainable. The accrual of interest on
a money decree is not contingent on the decree-holder’s diligence
but on the continued non-payment of the decretal dues. BSNL
remained liable to pay interest until a valid tender was made, and
that occurred only on 15.11.2018.
52. Accordingly, this Court directs as follows:
a. The impugned orders dated 24.02.2024 and 28.06.2024 are set
aside to the extent they authorize execution beyond Rs. 18,998
under Claim 68(iii). Execution shall be limited strictly to the
awarded amount, with interest applied on that sum only.
b. BSNL’s invocation of Clause 29A is upheld. The withheld amount
of Rs.42,24,189 shall not be executable until the related claim is
adjudicated. No interest is payable on this withheld sum.
c. The interest on Rs.31,91,349 shall be deemed to have stopped
accruing from 15.11.2018, the date on which BSNL validly
Page 30 of 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Jul-2025 14:05:19tendered the payment. The execution court shall exclude any
post-tender interest on this amount.
d. The matter is remanded to the Commercial Court, Bhubaneswar,
with a direction to rehear and decide BSNL’s objections under
Section 47 CPC, including the plea for set-off under Order XXI
Rule 18 CPC, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt
of this order.
e. BSNL shall deposit the recalculated balance decretal amount,
after adjusting the withheld and tendered sums, within 90 days.
Failure to do so will entitle the decree-holder to proceed with
execution for the outstanding dues with interest at the awarded
rate from the date of default till actual payment.
f. The execution court shall monitor compliance, rectify the
executable figures, and pass necessary consequential orders in
light of the above findings.
53. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned orders are
modified in terms of the above directions. Execution proceedings shall
continue in accordance with this judgment and applicable law.
54. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 18th July, 2025/
Page 31 of 31