Orissa High Court
M/S. Aryan Ispat And Power vs General Manager And Another on 6 April, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No.305 of 2026
M/s. Aryan Ispat and Power .... Appellant
Private Limited
Mr. Biyotkesh Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
General Manager and another .... Respondents
None
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 06.04.2026
01. 1. The case of the appellant is that the respondent no.2-Small
Enterprise certified by the District Industries Centre,
Sundargarh, alleging non-payment of dues towards supply
of iron ore to the appellant during 2019-2021, approached
the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (in
short, “the Council”) claiming an amount of
Rs.3,94,35,891/- (including principal and interest).
1.1. During pendency of such reference, the respondent no.2
made self-same claim before the National Company Law
Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLT”, for brevity) on 24th
February, 2022, which was allowed to be withdrawn on 6 th
January, 2023 after the appellant made payment of entire
dues. While matter stood thus, on 28th June, 2024,
respondent no.2 approached the Council, which passed
Page 1 of 6
award against the appellant. Questioning the propriety, a
proceeding was instituted before the learned District Judge,
Sundargarh for setting aside the award so passed by the
Council in the month of November, 2024, but the same was
transferred to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge-
cum-Commercial Court, Rourkela. Though said Case was
admitted vide order dated 21st April, 2025, on a petition
being filed by the respondent no.2 before the said Court for
recalling the order dated 21st April, 2025 on the ground of
limitation and also raising objection that the appellant did
not deposit 75% of the awarded amount, the learned Senior
Civil Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Rourkela directed the
appellant to make good such deposit vide order dated 4th
November, 2025.
1.2. Assailing the order dated 4th November, 2025 passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Commercial Court,
Rourkela, a writ petition has been filed before this Court,
which was registered as WP(C) No.34448 of 2025, styled
as an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India. Said writ petition got disposed of by
a learned Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated
9th January, 2026 upholding the order dated 4th November,
2025.
1.3. Since no relief is granted to the appellant by the learned
Single Judge, this intra-Court appeal has been filed
invoking Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the
Page 2 of 6
High Court of Judicature at Patna read with Article 4 of the
Orissa High Court Rules, 1948 seeking intervention in the
judgment dated 9th January, 2026 passed in WP(C)
No.34448 of 2025.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
since the appellant had deposited entire amount due to the
respondent no.2 and the matter before the NCLT being
allowed to be withdrawn by said respondent, the learned
Single Judge erred in law to direct the appellant to deposit
75% of the awarded amount for the purpose of maintaining
the appeal under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and upon
perusal of the impugned judgment rendered by the learned
Single Judge, it has come to fore that the judicial order
dated 4th November, 2025 was passed by the learned Senior
Civil Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Rourkela in
Arbitration Petition No.10 of 2024. Said order was assailed
in the writ petition.
4. Upon query, it is conceded the learned counsel for the
appellant that though the writ petition has been filed with
title “An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India;”, the learned Single Judge has passed
the judgment under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
against the judicial order dated 4th November, 2025 passed
Page 3 of 6
by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Commercial Court,
Rourkela.
4.1. This Court is of the view that the writ petition questioning
dated 4th November, 2025 passed by the learned Senior
Civil Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Rourkela in
Arbitration Petition No.10 of 2024 is not maintainable. An
identical question arose in an intra-Court appeal being M/s.
NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd., Haryana Vrs. Chief Engineer
(Roads-I), Bhubaneswar, W.A. No.237 of 2026 arising out
of an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this
Court against the order passed by the Commercial Court.
Vide judgment dated 10th March, 2026, this Court in the
said appeal held that judicial order is not susceptible to be
challenged for invocation of writ of certiorari. In the said
judgment, it has been observed as follows:
“11. Be that as it may, the judgment rendered in
Radhey Shyam and another vs. Chhabi Nath and others,
AIR 2015 SC 3269 has created an embargo in
entertaining an application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, more particularly, the writ of
certiorari against the judicial order passed by the Court
in a civil proceeding, and, therefore, the writ in the
nature of certiorari is not an appropriate remedy for an
aggrieved person.
12. It leads to another aspect as to whether power of
superintendence has also been taken away in relation to
a judicial order passed in a civil proceeding; the answer
is negatived. The power of superintendence encapsulated
within its fold to keep the Court and the tribunals
Page 4 of 6
subordinate to it within its territories to travel within the
circumference of law and in the event, it is found that the
Court has transgressed such boundary, the High Court
may pass an appropriate order which is just in tune with
the settled legal provisions. There is no fetter either in
Surya Dev Rai Vrs. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675
or Radhey Shyam (supra) created in entertaining an
application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
against a judicial order passed in a civil proceeding,
and, therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the
application under Article 227 of the Constitution is
maintainable in such situations.
13. A piquant situation has arisen when the application is
captioned as an application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India. Both the provisions have
been resorted to, but the categorization of the case
appears to have been done treating such application to
have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and the learned Single Judge who passed the
impugned order was conferred with the jurisdiction/
determination to deal with such application(s). There is
no incongruity on our part in proceeding on such basis
that an application under Article 226 of the Constitution
is entertained by the Single Bench against an order
passed in execution of decree by the Commercial Court
and being the judicial order, the writ of certiorari is not
an appropriate remedy as the same is not maintainable
in view of the law laid down in Radhey Shyam (supra).
***
16. Though we do not find any infirmity in exercise of the
jurisdiction as a plea of demur was not taken by the
appellant nor do we find any reference thereof in the
impugned order, once such plea is taken in the instant
appeal as a plea of jurisdiction which strikes at the rootPage 5 of 6
of the exercise of power, we permit such point to be
taken and decided in the instant writ appeal.
17. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we hasten
to say that the writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the
Constitution is not maintainable against the judicial
order passed in a civil proceeding, but equally the
proceeding is maintainable under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.”
4.2. Since the issue of jurisdiction strikes at the root of the
matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that writ
petition as considered by the learned Single Bench against
the order dated 4th November, 2025 passed by the learned
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Rourkela in
Arbitration Petition No.10 of 2024 is not maintainable.
Accordingly, this Court while quashing the judgment dated
9th January, 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C) No.34448 of 2025 holds that the writ petition is
not maintainable in the wake of discussions made supra.
5. In view of the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal stands
disposed of. As a result of disposal of the writ appeal, all
pending Interlocutory Application (s), shall stand disposed
of, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to
costs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
(Harish Tandon)
Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA
Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Chief Justice
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 07-Apr-2026 16:35:46
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
MRS/Laxmikant
Page 6 of 6
