Madhya Pradesh High Court Slams SECL for Delaying 2003 Arbitral Award Execution, Imposes Costs

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has come down heavily on attempts to stall long-pending execution proceedings, dismissing a petition filed by South Eastern Coalfields Ltd and imposing costs of Rs. 25,000 for what it termed a frivolous and delaying tactic. In doing so, the court reaffirmed that execution courts are not forums for re-adjudicating settled issues, particularly when an arbitral award has already withstood multiple rounds of challenge up to the Supreme Court.

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal was dealing with a petition under Article 227 challenging an order of the 24th Additional District Judge, Commercial Court, Jabalpur, which had rejected an application seeking examination of disputed signatures by a handwriting expert. The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Anoop Nair with Advocate Rajas Pohankar, while the respondent/caveator was represented by Senior Advocate Naman Nagrath with Advocates Shreyas Dharmadhikari and Teerthesh Bharilya.

The dispute arose in execution proceedings initiated by M/s Tirupati Constructions for enforcement of an arbitral award dated August 15, 2003. The award had originally been passed in favour of the firm through its sole proprietor, Rajendra Singhania. In the present round of execution, Padam Kumar Singhania claimed to be the sole proprietor on the basis of partnership and dissolution deeds executed over the years, culminating in a dissolution deed dated April 1, 2024.

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd objected under Section 47 CPC, contending that the partnership deed dated February 7, 2002 was fabricated and that the signatures of Rajendra Singhania appearing on it did not match his current signatures. It sought examination of the signatures by a handwriting expert under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The Commercial court rejected the plea, prompting the present challenge.

The High court found no merit in the grievance. It noted that both brothers, Rajendra and Padam Kumar Singhania, had appeared before the Executing court and admitted their signatures on the partnership deed. The court recorded that there was no inter se dispute between them, and that Rajendra Singhania had expressly authorized Padam Kumar Singhania to recover the decretal amount. In such circumstances, the petitioner had no locus to challenge the internal arrangement of the firm.

Significantly, the bench observed that the partnership deed was executed nearly two decades ago and that “some discrepancy between the signatures appearing on the said deed and the present signatures is a normal phenomenon and cannot, by itself, be a ground for suspicion”. When the executant himself does not dispute his signature, there is no requirement for expert examination, the court held.

The judges also endorsed the Commercial court’s reliance on the principle that admitted facts need not be proved. Referring to settled law governing execution proceedings, the bench underlined that Section 47 CPC cannot be used to reopen concluded issues, and that execution courts must prevent abuse of process. The arbitral award, the court noted, had been challenged before the District court, then before the High court in appeal, and finally before the Supreme Court, where the special leave petition was dismissed.

In strong words, the bench described the application for expert opinion as “an abuse of process” filed at the final stage of arguments to delay enforcement. It held that the petitioner was “liable to pay the decretal amount” and that the present attempt was a deliberate strategy to prevent the respondent from enjoying the fruits of a decree that had survived judicial scrutiny for over two decades.

Finding the petition devoid of substance, the court dismissed it with costs of Rs. 25,000 to be deposited before the Executing court and made payable to the respondent.

Case Title: South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd v. M/S Tirupati Constructions

Date of Order: February 23, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal