2026:JHHC:11367 -1- Civil Review No.149 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Civil Review No.149 of 2025 ---- 1.M/s Simplex Castings Ltd., through its Authorized Representaive Shri Satyavrat Thakur, aged about 31 years, son of Shri Dinesh Thakur, resident of House No.330, Ward No.46, Near Police Chowki, Padmanabhapuram, PO, PS and District, Durg, Chhattisgarh, having registered office at 601/602 A, Fairlink Centre, Off Andheri Link Road, PO and PS Andheri (West) District Mumbai, Maharashtra -400053, having Corporate Office at Plot No.32 Shivnath Complex, E Road, Supela, PO, PS and District Bhilai, Chhattisgarh 490 023 2.Ketan Moolchand Shah, aged about 60 years, son of Moolchand R. Shah, resident of A-5, Surya Vihar, Supela, Bhilai, Durg Chhattisgarh Chairman of M/s Simplex Castings Ltd., having office at 601/602 A, Fairlink Centre, Off Andheri Link Road, PO and PS Andheri (West), District Mumbai, Maharashtra -400053 3.Sangeeta Ketan Shah, aged about 52 years, wife of Ketan M. Shah, resident of A-5, Surya Vihar, Supela, Bhilai, Durg- Chhattisgarh Managing Director of M/s Simplex Castings Ltd., having office at 601/602 A, Fairlink Centre, Off Andheri Link Road, PO and PS Andheri (West) District Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400053 …… …. .... Petitioner(s) -- Versus -- M/s Golden Ceramic Works (P) Ltd., through its Principal Officer, Mr. Babul Kumar, aged about 52 years, son of Late Ram Chandra Prasad, resident of Laxmi Niwas, Nehru Road, Chirkunda, PO Chirkunda, PS Nirsa, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand -828 202 …… ….. .... Respondents 2026:JHHC:11367 -2- Civil Review No.149 of 2025 ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, Advocate For the Respondent :- -- ---- 9/17.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. This Civil Review petition has been instituted seeking review of the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by this Court in CMP No.586 of 2024. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the wrong interpretation of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Limited, Represented by J. Thilak, Senior Manager (Legal) v. Abdul Samad and Another(supra) the said order has been passed and in view of that there is apparent error in the said order, and in view of that, the same may kindly be rectified by way of reviewing the said order. 4. The Judgement dated 16.07.2025 in C.M.P. No.586 of 2024 was decided by this Court and this Court considering the several judgments has held that, “the enforcement of an award through its execution can be initiated anywhere in the country where the decree can be executed and there is no requirement of obtaining 2026:JHHC:11367 -3- Civil Review No.149 of 2025 a transfer of the decree from the court which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings.’”. In paragraph nos. 14 and 15 of the said judgment, it has been held by this Court, as under: “14. Now coming to the present case, it is undisputed that the dispute arises out of the supply of refractory bricks by the petitioner from Dhanbad in the State of Jharkhand to Bhilai in the State of Chhatisgarh, meaning thereby, the petitioner is having the factory at Dhanbad and in view of that even if the office of the Opposite parties herein, registered office thereof is said to be situated at Mumbai and the corporate office is said to be situated at Bhilai in the State of Chhatisgarh and the arbitral Award was pronounced at Ranchi, that would make no difference in filing of the execution proceeding at Dhanbad in the State of Jharkhand in light of interpretation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Limited, Represented by J. Thilak, Senior Manager (Legal) v. Abdul Samad and Another(supra) as well as Cheran Properties Limited v. Kasturi and Sons Limited and Others(supra) by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the provision of the Civil Procedure Code as well as under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and that is still occupying the field. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned order is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 15. Now, coming to the another argument of the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite parties herein with regard to the filing of the objection under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 2026:JHHC:11367 -4- Civil Review No.149 of 2025 at Ranchi, further fortifies that against an Award given at Ranchi, the Opposite parties themselves have preferred an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the learned court at Ranchi, and therefore, the Opposite parties herein acquiescence their rights and their objection certainly barred by Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Opposite parties cannot raise objection at this stage about the jurisdiction.” 5. In view of above facts, after giving the reasons, the Court has passed the aforesaid order which is final in nature as there is no error on the face of the record, and if that is not there, the review jurisdiction cannot be exercise by this Court. 6. The petitioner, by way of filing the present review petition, has sought to re-open the entire issue which cannot be the subject matter of a civil review petition, and as such, this civil review petition being Civil Review No.149 of 2025, is, hereby, dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated : 17.04.2026 SI/