OCD-2 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE EC-COM/359/2026 IA NO: GA-COM/1/2026 M/S. DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 13th August, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Amitava Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Tapas Kumar Dey, Adv. Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Adv. …for award-holder. Mr. Sunil Singhania, Adv. Ms. Anamika Pandey, Adv. …for award-debtors. The Court: This is an application filed by the award-holder seeking (i) revival of EC/142/2010, and (ii) a direction that the present execution petition, EC-COM/359/2026, be treated as a continuation of the said earlier execution proceedings. It is submitted by learned counsel for the award-holder that the award-holder seeks to enforce the arbitral award dated 18.07.2007. The said award was challenged by the award-debtors by way of an Application being G.A. No. 3659/2007 in AP/259/2001 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. G.A. No. 3659/2007 came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 01.04.2010. Consequent thereupon, the award-holder filed EC/142/2010 seeking execution of the 2 award. Thereafter, G.A. No. 3659/2007 was restored by order dated 19.07.2010, and as a result, EC/142/2010 came to be disposed of by order dated 20.07.2010. It is further submitted that, in the interregnum, the award-debtors initiated a settlement scheme for resolution of disputes with the contractor and other similarly placed persons. The award-holder applied under the said scheme, but the application was rejected by letter dated 30.01.2025 on the ground that G.A. No. 3659/2007 was still pending. Learned counsel submits that this premise was factually incorrect, inasmuch as G.A. No. 3659/2007 already stood dismissed by order dated 10.05.2011. On this basis, and with reference to the order dated 20.07.2010 passed in EC/142/2010, the award-holder now prays for revival of EC/142/2010. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, the Court notes the sequence of undisputed facts. The underlying arbitral award is dated 18.07.2007 and the challenge to the award by way of an application being G.A. No. 3659/2007, was finally dismissed by this Court on 10.05.2011. No steps were taken by the award-holder to execute the award following the dismissal of G.A, No. 3659/2007 in 2011. The present execution petition, being EC- COM/359/2026, has been filed only in 2026, approximately fifteen years after the dismissal of G.A. No. 3659/2007, without any explanation on record for this inordinate delay. 3 In these circumstances, the Court finds no basis to revive the earlier, long-dormant execution petition (EC/142/2010) by clubbing it with the present proceedings. The attempt, in substance, is to circumvent the law of limitation by treating a fresh execution petition, filed after fifteen years, as a continuation of one that already stood disposed of in 2010. The execution of an arbitral award, once it attains finality, is governed by Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a period of twelve years from the date when the decree or order becomes enforceable. An arbitral award that has been unsuccessfully challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 becomes enforceable, and limitation for its execution begins to run from the date of dismissal of the Section 34 petition. In the present case, G.A. No. 3659/2007, being the challenge to the award dated 18.07.2007, was finally dismissed on 10.05.2011. It is from this date that the award became executable and the twelve-year period under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 commenced running. The said period expired on or about 10.05.2023. The present execution petition, EC-COM/359/2026, has been filed only in 2026, approximately fifteen years after the dismissal of G.A. No. 3659/2007, and more than three years beyond even the outer limitation period prescribed under Article 136. No explanation, much less a satisfactory one, has been placed on record to account for this delay, nor has any application seeking condonation of delay been moved. 4 Accordingly, the present execution petition is barred by limitation, and no case for revival of EC/142/2010, or for treating the present petition as a continuation thereof, has been made out. For the reasons recorded above, the present application stands dismissed, along with the connected application. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) R.D.Barua