ODISHA MINING CORPORATION LTD, OMC HOUSE, BHUBANESWAR vs FARIDABAD GURGAON MINERALS, HARYANA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 21-Sep-2026 18:27:21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025
And
W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
….
In W.P.(C) No.35289 of 2025
ODHC010887612025
State of Odisha and others
Petitioners
-versus-
….
M/s.Dhanurdhar Champatiray,
Proprietor and Special Class
Contractor, Nayapalli,
Bhubaneswar
Opposite Party
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Tripathy, AGA
Mr.T.K.Dash, AGA
For Opposite Party : Mr.A.Sanganeria, Advocate
….
In W.P.(C) No.35291 of 2025
ODHC010887722025
State of Odisha and others
Petitioners
-versus-
….
M/s.Dhanurdhar Champatiray,
Proprietor and Special Class
Contractor, Nayapalli,
Bhubaneswar
Opposite Party
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Tripathy, AGA
Mr.T.K.Dash, AGA
For Opposite Party : Mr.A.Sanganeria, Advocate
W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025
and W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026 Page 1 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 21-Sep-2026 18:27:21
….
In W.P.(C) No.35309 of 2025
ODHC010889302025
State of Odisha and others
Petitioners
-versus-
….
M/s.Dhanurdhar Champatiray,
Proprietor and Special Class
Contractor, Nayapalli,
Bhubaneswar
Opposite Party
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Tripathy, AGA
Mr.T.K.Dash, AGA
For Opposite Party : Mr.A.Sanganeria, Advocate
….
In W.P.(C) No.35312 of 2025
ODHC010888972025
State of Odisha and others
Petitioners
-versus-
….
M/s.Dhanurdhar Champatiray,
Propriator and Special Class
Contractor, Nayapalli,
Bhubaneswar
Opposite Party
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Tripathy, AGA
Mr.T.K.Dash, AGA
For Opposite Party : Mr.A.Sanganeria, Advocate
….
In W.P.(C) No.35317 of 2025
ODHC010889032025
State of Odisha and others
Petitioners
-versus-
….
M/s.Dhanurdhar Champatiray,
Propriator and Special Class
Contractor, Nayapalli,
Bhubaneswar
Opposite Party
W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025
and W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026 Page 2 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 21-Sep-2026 18:27:21
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Tripathy, AGA
Mr.T.K.Dash, AGA
For Opposite Party : Mr.A.Sanganeria, Advocate
….
In W.P.(C) No.3223 of 2026
ODHC010061182026
M/s.Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.,
Jagriti Vihar, UCE, Burla,
Sambalpur and others
Petitioners
-versus-
….
M/s.Sidhartha Engineering Ltd.,
Gandamunda, Bhubaneswar
Opposite Party
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioners : Mr.H.Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr.L.Pangari, Sr.Advocate
….
In W.P.(C) No.44 of 2026
ODHC010923422025
Odisha Mining Corporation Ltd.,
OMC House, Bhubaneswar
Petitioner
-versus-
….
Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals,
Haryana
Opposite Party
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr.P.K.Muduli, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr.S.S.Mohanty, Advocate
….
In W.P.(C) No.6384 of 2026
ODHC010135402026
Odisha State Road Transport
Corporation, Khurda
Petitioner
W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025
and W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026 Page 3 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 21-Sep-2026 18:27:21
-versus-
….
ARSS Bus Terminal Pvt. Ltd.,
Khurda
Opposite Party
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Tripathy, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr.N.Thackar, Advocate
….
In W.P.(C) No.8151 of 2026
ODHC010167392026
M/s.Choudhury Fabrication Works,
Sambalpur
Petitioner
-versus-
….
District Education Officer,
Sundargarh
Opposite Party
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr.Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr.G.Tripathy, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
th
Date of Hearing : 15 July 2026
st
Date of Judgment : 21 September 2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.P. Routray, J.
1. The common issue involved in all these writ petitions,
irrespective of their individual merits, is on the question of
maintainability as a preliminary objection raised referring to the
provisions contained in Section 37(3) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter stated as “1996 Act”). In view of
W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025
and W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026 Page 4 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 21-Sep-2026 18:27:21
limited question on maintainability, with reference to Section 37(3) of
1996 Act, the detailed facts of cases touching their respective merits is
not required to be stated essentially. All the writ petitions are preferred
challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority, i.e. the
District Judge in terms of Section 37(1) of 1996 Act. The preliminary
objection raised with regard to maintainability of all these writ
petitions is to the effect that, when no provision of second appeal,
except appeal to the Supreme Court, is provided in 1996 Act, present
writ petitions filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
cannot be maintainable in the guise of second appeal to this Court.
It is submitted that 1996 Act is a self contained code and
provision of Section 5 and 37 thereof denies the right of second appeal
under any circumstances. The writ petitions before this Court cannot be
held maintainable to question the order of appellate authority passed
under Section 37(1) of 1996 Act.
2 . It is true that 1996 Act is a self contained code. Section 5 of the
said Act reads as follows:
“ 5. Extent of judicial intervention .—Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed
by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided
in this Part.”
W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025
and W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026 Page 5 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 21-Sep-2026 18:27:21
3. Further, Section 37, which is material to be referred here, reads
as follows:
“ 37. Appealable orders .—(1) An appeal shall lie from the
following orders (and from no others) to the court authorised by law to
hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order,
namely—
( a ) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8;
( b ) granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9;
( c ) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under
Section 34.
(2) An appeal shall also lie to a court from an order granting of the Arbitral
Tribunal—
( a ) accepting the plea referred in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of
Section 16; or
( b ) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under Section 17.
(3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this
section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to
the Supreme Court.”
4. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 within the ambit of its
provisions recognizes the forum structure for adjudication of
commercial disputes. For the State of Odisha within its territory, the
Commercial Courts are headed by Judicial Officers in the cadre of
Senior Civil Judge and Commercial Appellate Courts are headed by the
Principal District Judges within their respective jurisdiction. What
happened in present writ petitions is that, the award passed by the
Arbitrator was challenged before the Commercial Courts under Section
34 of 1996 Act and then the order and judgment of the Commercial
Court was challenged before the Commercial Appellate Court, i.e. the
District Judge under Section 37(1) of 1996 Act. Thereafter, against the
W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025
and W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026 Page 6 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 21-Sep-2026 18:27:21
order of the learned District Judge is challenged in present writ
petitions by respective aggrieved parties. Thus, the objection is raised
to present writ petitions that, the same in the guise of second appeal are
not maintainable being not permitted within the scope of 1996 Act and
therefore, the parties are to approach the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
directly.
5. It may be stated here that appeal is a creature of statute and
unless so permitted in the statute, an aggrieved party cannot invoke the
remedy of appeal unrecognized in the statute. Section 37 of 1996 Act is
the last statutory remedy in the statutory scheme framed in 1996 Act.
Section 37 provides a limited appellate remedy and no further appeal,
except appeal to the Supreme Court is permissible against the order
passed under Section 37(1) of the Act. It would not be any gain saying
that that the remedy under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India is not an appellate remedy. The jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution would come to the
questions of jurisdiction, illegality and alike and it cannot be curtailed
by the presence of provisions of the Act. In Nivedita Sharma vrs.
COAL, (2011) 14 SCC 337, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has explained
that there cannot be any dispute that the power of High Courts to issue
W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025
and W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026 Page 7 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 21-Sep-2026 18:27:21
directions, orders or writs including writs of different natures is the
basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by
Parliamentary Legislation. It has been further explained that, it is one
thing to say that in exercise of power vested in the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution, it can entertain a writ petition against
any order passed by or action taken by the State and/or its
agency/instrumentality or any public authority or order passed a quasi
judicial body/authority, and it is all together different to say that each
and every objection filed under Article 226 of the Constitution must be
entertained by the High Court as a matter of course ignoring the fact
that the aggrieved person has an effective alternative remedy. Rather, it
is settled that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of
the grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the
statutory dispensation. In Thansingh Nathmal vrs. Supt. of Taxes,
AIR 1964 SC 1419 , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed as
follows:
„ 7. … The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal
against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of
fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226
trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for
obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to
move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for
obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High
W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025
and W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026 Page 8 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 21-Sep-2026 18:27:21
Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the
statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to
seek resort to the machinery so set up.‟
6. There is no quarrel over the proposition that the supervisory
power under Article 227 can only be exercised where there is
demonstrable perversity or the order of the Arbitral Tribunal is patently
without jurisdiction or offends the basis structure of Constitution. The
Arbitral Tribunals though are distinct from statutory or constitutional
tribunals, but are given the functions of adjudicating legal disputes and
for their obligation to adhere to the principles of natural justice can be
questioned within the scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the
Constitution. However, the supervisory control under Article 227 of
the Constitution is not equivalent to the appellate review and the rule is
confined to correct manifest circumstances of illegality, faith or
perversity so glaring that it indicts a patent lack of jurisdiction and
should not be used in routine manner lest would nullify the entire
performance of separate arbitration regime. ( See: Bhaben
Construction vrs. Sardar Sarover Narmada Nigam Ltd, (2022) 1 SCC
75, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. vrs. EMTA Coal Ltd. (2020)
W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025
and W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026 Page 9 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 21-Sep-2026 18:27:21
17 SCC 93 & Surender Kumar Singhal vrs. Arun Kumar Bhalotia,
2021 DHC 1097.
7. The non-obstante Clause as engrafted in Section 5 of 1996 Act
used the expression “Judicial Authority”. The High Court while
exercising the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India cannot be restricted as a mere judicial
authority and such statutory restrictions cannot withheld the power of
High Court to entertain a writ petition, where there is egregious
illegality or actions offending judicial conscience, to see that the
Courts and Tribunals act within the bounds of their jurisdiction and
follow the principles of nature justice.
8. In Deep Industries Ltd. vrs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Ltd. and another, (2020) 15 SCC 706 , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
dealing with the question relating to High Courts exercising
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when it
comes to matters that are decided under 1996 Act, have observed as
follows:
“16. Most significant of all is the non obstante clause contained
in Section 5 which states that notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law, in matters that arise under Part I of
the Arbitration Act, no judicial authority shall intervene except
W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025
and W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026 Page 10 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 21-Sep-2026 18:27:21
where so provided in this Part. Section 37 grants a constricted
right of first appeal against certain judgments and orders and no
others. Further, the statutory mandate also provides for one bite
at the cherry, and interdicts a second appeal being filed
[ see Section 37(2) of the Act].
17. This being the case, there is no doubt whatsoever that if
petitions were to be filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution against orders passed in appeals under Section 37,
the entire arbitral process would be derailed and would not
come to fruition for many years. At the same time, we cannot
forget that Article 227 is a constitutional provision which
remains untouched by the non obstante clause of Section 5 of
the Act. In these circumstances, what is important to note is that
though petitions can be filed under Article 227 against
judgments allowing or dismissing first appeals under Section 37
of the Act, yet the High Court would be extremely circumspect
in interfering with the same, taking into account the statutory
policy as adumbrated by us hereinabove so that interference is
restricted to orders that are passed which are patently lacking in
inherent jurisdiction.”
9. In National Aluminum Company Ltd. vrs. M/s. Maheswari
Brothers Coal Ltd., Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.57336 of
2024, Order dated 15.01.2025, the Petitioner approached the Supreme
Court directly challenging the order of the District Judge, Khurda
passed in Arbitration No.7 of 2023 under Section 37(3) of 1996 Act.
The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in order dated 15.1.2025 gave liberty to
W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025
and W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026 Page 11 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 21-Sep-2026 18:27:21
the Petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India. The relevant portion of the order is
reproduced below:-
“ In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Deep
Industries Ltd. vrs. ONGC, it will be open for the petitioners to
invoke jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India for challenging the impugned orders.
We, therefore, dispose of the petition by granting liberty to the
petitioners to file proceedings as aforesaid.
It is needless to add that in the event adverse orders are passed
in the petition which may be filed by the petitioners under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, it will be open for
the petitioners to challenge the said orders before this Court in
accordance with law.”
10. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court again in United India Insurance
Company Limited vrs. Odisha Hydra Power Corporation Ltd.,
SLP(civil) Diary No. 55784 of 2024, Order dated 06.01.2025, relying
on the case of Deep Industries Limited (supra ) permitted the Petitioner
to approach the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution
of India. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:-
“When an arbitral award is confirmed in a petition under
Section 34 and in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, even this Court while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India has to
W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025
and W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026 Page 12 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 21-Sep-2026 18:27:21
be circumspect. As a remedy under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution is available to the petitioner to challenge the
impugned judgment, we dispose of the Special Leave Petiton by
permitted the petitioner to avail the remedy before the High
Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. In the event, an
adverse order is passed in the petition which may be filed by the
petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, it will be
always open for the petitioner to challenge the said order before
this Court in accordance with law.”
11. For the discussions made and reasons stated above, and keeping
in view the approach of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in National
Aluminum Company Ltd. (supra) and United India Insurance Company
Limited (supra), it would be incorrect to refuse the Petitioners to
approach this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India to challenge the order of the District Judge passed under Section
37(1) of 1996 Act. Thus, the preliminary objection raised by the
Opposite Parties with regard to maintainability of the writ petitions in
terms of Section 37(3) of 1996 Act is overruled.
12. It is important to state here that this Court while dealing with the
present objection on maintainability of the writ petitions has not
touched the boundaries on merit of individual cases and all such
questions are left upon to be decided including the merits of each writ
petition, either on the question of law or on facts.
W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025
and W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026 Page 13 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 21-Sep-2026 18:27:21
th
13 . List all the appeals on 5 October 2026 before regular assigned
Bench. Interim orders passed earlier in respective writ petitions shall
continue till next date.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R.Biswal/A.R.cum-Sr.Secretary
W.P.(C) No.35289, 35291, 35309, 35312, 35317 of 2025
and W.P.(C) No.3223, 44, 6384 & 8151 of 2026 Page 14 of 14