Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
M/S Bohra Agri Films Private Limited vs Food Corporation Of India … on 18 February, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:9097]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Execution First Appeal No. 7/2025
M/s Bohra Agri Films Private Limited, Head Office 331-332, B
Block Anand Plaza, University Road, Udaipur Through Its
Authorized Representative Mr. Hemant Kumar Bhohra S/o Late
Onkar Lal Bohra Aged About 65 Years, R/o 220 Ashok Nagar
Main Road Udaipur Raj.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Food Corporation Of India, Through The Divisional
Manager, Divisional Office, Udaipur Raj.
2. M/s Bohra Enterprises (Partnership Firm), 26, Shastri
Marg, Udaipur Through Partner Shri Hemant Kumar Bohra
S/o Late Shri Onkar Lal Ji Bohra Presently Residing At 301
Anand Plaza University Road Aayad Udaipur
3. M/s Bohra Enterpeise (Partnership Firm), 26, Shashtri
Marg , Udaipur Through Authorized Representative Shri
M.n. Mohan F-223-A Mewad Industrial Area Udaipur Raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aman Maheshwari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitin Trivedi
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
18/02/2026
1. The present execution first appeal has been filed aggrieved
of order dated 16.09.2025 passed by Additional District Judge
No.1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Executing Court’) in
Execution Application No.487/2022 whereby the objections under
Order XXI Rule 97, 98, 99 & 100, CPC as filed by the defendant
appellant, stood rejected.
2. The facts are that the appellant firm was awarded a
tender/work contract by respondent FCI. Certain disputes arose
(Uploaded on 21/02/2026 at 07:06:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:41:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9097] (2 of 5) [EXFA-7/2025]
out of the said work contract and the matter was hence referred
to arbitration. In the arbitration proceedings, the learned
arbitrator passed Award dated 09.02.2003 for an amount of
Rs.29,12,000/- with interest @ 10% per annum in favour of the
appellant firm.
3. Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1996’)
against the said Award were filed by the FCI which stood
dismissed and the miscellaneous appeal (No. 3221/2010) filed
under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 also stood dismissed. Meaning
thereby, Award dated 09.02.2003 attained finality.
4. Meanwhile, the firm moved an application before the
Arbitrator for amendment in the Award and prayed for grant of
higher rate of interest. The said application stood dismissed vide
order dated 02.05.2003.
5. However, in the misc. appeal before the High Court, vide
interim order dated 09.04.2012, respondent FCI was directed to
pay 50% of the award amount to the respondent Firm. The said
amount was admittedly paid.
6. The liability of the FCI after dismissal of its appeal, to pay
the remaining principle as well as interest amount revived and
hence, in the execution proceedings initiated by the appellant
firm, the remaining due amount with interest, was also paid by
the FCI.
7. However, subsequently it was found by the FCI that an extra
amount of Rs.5,97,957/ has been paid by it to the appellant firm
and hence, application dated 29.11.2017 was filed before the
(Uploaded on 21/02/2026 at 07:06:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:41:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9097] (3 of 5) [EXFA-7/2025]
Executing Court with a prayer that the firm be directed to refund
the amount of Rs.5,97,957/- to it.
8. The above application stood allowed vide order dated
12.04.2018 (Annexure-8). It is an admitted fact that no challenge
to the said order was ever laid by the appellant firm.
9. The firm then moved an application before the MSME
claiming higher rate of interest on the principal amount of
Rs.29,12,000/-, in terms of the provisions of Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The said application
was entertained by the MSME and Award dated 05.08.2021 to pay
compound interest @ three times to the prevelant interest rate
was passed by the MSME.
10. Aggrieved of the above Award, FCI preferred a writ petition
before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13892/2021.
11. Vide interim order dated 06.10.2021, the Court directed as
under:
“In the meantime, no coercive action shall be
taken against the petitioners pursuant to the
award dated 31.08.2021 (Annex.12).”
12. Meanwhile, FCI also undertook execution proceedings for
execution of order dated 12.04.2018 (Annexure-8), for refund of
the extra amount of Rs.5,97,957/- paid by it to the firm.
13. The firm filed objections under Order XXI Rule 97, 98, 99 &
100, CPC averring that the writ petition (S.B. CWP No.
13892/2021) as filed by the FCI stood pending wherein even an
interim order had been passed. Therefore, till the said writ petition
is decided, the execution proceedings deserves to be stayed. As
vide interim order it was directed by the Court that no coercive
(Uploaded on 21/02/2026 at 07:06:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:41:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9097] (4 of 5) [EXFA-7/2025]
action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance to Award
dated 31.08.2021, the present execution proceedings could not be
maintained by the respondent FCI and further that the Executing
Court could not proceed further with the proceedings.
14. The objections as filed by the appellant firm stood rejected
vide order dated 16.09.2025, against which the present appeal
has been preferred.
15. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.
16. This Court does not find any reason/ground to interfere with
the order impugned for the following reasons:-
(i) Admittedly, the execution in question was qua order
dated 12.04.2018 which order was never assailed by the
appellant firm and hence, the same attained finality.
Learned Executing Court was therefore, under a legal
obligation to get the said order executed.
(ii) Interim order dated 06.10.2021 passed in the writ
petition as preferred by FCI definitely was in favour of
the FCI and not the appellant firm. Vide the said interim
order, no coercive action against FCI was directed to be
taken. How could the said interim relief help the
appellant firm, is incomprehensible. By all means, the
firm cannot take advantage of any interim relief awarded
in favour of the respondents.
(iii) Award dated 05.08.2021 passed by the MSME even
otherwise can have no effect on the validity of order
dated 12.04.2018. It is nowhere disputed by the
appellant firm that an extra amount of Rs. 5,97,957/-
was received by it. The legal liability to refund the same
(Uploaded on 21/02/2026 at 07:06:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:41:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9097] (5 of 5) [EXFA-7/2025]
cannot be avoided by the firm on the pretext of alleged
Award dated 05.08.2021. Even if the writ petition as filed
by the FCI ultimately gets dismissed, the appellant firm
would definitely be entitled to get Award dated
05.08.2021 executed in its favour, but the same can
definitely not exonerate from its liability to refund the
extra amount paid to it and that too, when order dated
12.04.2018 was never assailed by it.
17. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the learned Executing Court
rightly held that it could not travel beyond the decree and rightly
rejected the objections as filed by the appellant firm.
18. No case for interference is made out and the present
Execution First Appeal stands dismissed.
19. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
268-Arvind/-
(Uploaded on 21/02/2026 at 07:06:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:41:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
