1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 834 of 2025 South Eastern Coalfields Limited S.E.C.L. Sohagpur Area, Through HOD (Legal) S.E.C.L., H.Q.R.S., Seepat Road, Bilaspur, C.G. --- Petitioner versus M/s Kaytin Transport Pvt. Ltd. (KTP) Through Its Director Lt. Col (Retd.) K.K. Khanna, S/o Late I.D. Khanna, Aged 88 Years, R/o 54, Rakshak Society, Aundh Camp, Pune (Maharashtra) --- Respondent with WP227 No. 835 of 2025 South Eastern Coalfields Limited SECL Gevra Area, Through HOD (Legal), SECL Hqrs, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.). --- Petitioner versus 1 - M/s Kaytin Transport Pvt. Ltd. (KTP) Through Its Director Lt. Col (Retd.) K.K. Khanna, S/o Late I.D. Khanna, Aged 88 Years, R/o 54, Rakshak Society, Aundh Camp, Pune (Maharashtra). --- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. V. R. Tiwari, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ali Asgar, Mr. Udai V. S. Rathore, and Mr. A. Laxmidhar, Advocates Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04/09/2025 1. The petitioner/SECL has challenged the order(s) dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur in Execution Case Nos. 03/2025 and 04/2025, whereby the Court imposed cost of Rs.20,000- 20,000/- in both execution cases on the petitioner and has also sought modification of order dated 12.08.2025. 2. From a perusal of the order dated 12.08.2025, it is apparent that the applications filed by the petitioners seeking 7 days’ further time to satisfy the award in terms of order dated 30.06.2025 were considered by the learned Commercial Court and time up to 19.08.2025 was granted to the petitioner to satisfy the award in terms of earlier order dated 30.06.2025 and further direction was issued to deposit awarded amount directly in the bank account of the award holder. Thus, applications moved by the petitioner in both the execution cases were disposed of. 3. On 19.08.2025, the petitioner again sought one week’s further time to comply with the order dated 12.08.2025. It was brought to the notice of the Court that appeals have been preferred against the orders passed in the execution proceedings before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which were subsequently dismissed as withdrawn. 4. The learned Commercial Court observed that SECL has been directed to furnish an affidavit of assets of the award debtor and said part of order has not been complied with & further the award debtor failed to make payment of the balance award amount and did not assign any reason for such failure; thus, the learned Commercial Court imposed 3 cost of Rs.20,000- 20,000/- in both execution cases and granted two days’ further time to comply with the order dated 12.08.2025. 5. Mr. V. R. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/SECL submitted that appeals were preferred against the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court before the High Court, which were withdrawn, and thereafter writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India were filed, therefore, the petitioner sought time to comply with the order dated 12.08.2025. He contended that the learned Commercial Court ought to have afforded one more opportunity. He prayed to quash the order dated 19.08.2025, whereby costs of Rs.20,000-20,000/- have been imposed in both execution cases. He also prayed for modification of the order dated 12.08.2025. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submission made by learned Senior Counsel and submit that the award debtor was deliberately seeking repeated adjournments in order to delay satisfaction of the award. 7. Mr. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that the petitioners deliberately failed to comply with the orders passed by the learned Executing Court, and thus, the learned Commercial Court rightly imposed costs of Rs.20,000 - 20,000/- each in both execution cases. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 9. The contention made by Mr. Tiwari with regard to order dated 12.08.2025, in my considered opinion, no case is made out for interference, as sufficient time was granted to the petitioner to comply with the order dated 30.06.2025. 4 10. With respect to the order dated 19.08.2025 imposing costs of Rs.20,000- 20,000 in both execution cases, in my view, the learned Executing Court ought to have taken into consideration that the petitioner earlier approached High Court assailing the order dated 30.06.2025 by filing First Appeals & after withdrawal, by filing Writ Petitions. Therefore, the learned Executing Court ought to have afforded one opportunity to the petitioner to comply with the order dated 12.08.2025. 11.Accordingly, the orders passed by the learned Executing Court/Commercial Court imposing costs of Rs.20,000- 20,000/- each in Execution Case Nos. 03/2025 and 04/2025 are hereby quashed. 12.In the result, both petitions are allowed in part. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim