M/S Ram Janki Electrocasting Pvt. Ltd., Rep. Thro One of Its Director, Sri Binod Kumar Agarwal Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma

2026:JHHC:20756

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4958 of 2026

M/s. RAM JANKI ELECTROCASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, having its registered office at 202, H.P. Chambers, 2^nd Floor, Kutchery Road, near Gopal Complex, PO, GPO & PS-Kotwali, Ranchi-834001 ( Jharkhand), represented though one of its Director, Sri Binod Kumar Agarwal, aged about 61 years, son of Radheshyam Agarwal, resident of 201, Shyamkunj Apartment, Kali Mandir Road, Burdwan Compound, Near Hariom Tower, Lalpur, PO, GPO & PS-Lalpur, Ranchi-834001( Jharkhand).

¶4

… … Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, having its office at the Collectorate Building, Koderma, Jharkhand.

¶7

Competent Authority-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, NH31, Koderma, having its office at District Land Acquisition Branch, Koderma, Jharkhand.

¶8

Project Director, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), NH31, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. … … Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶10

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Kaushalesh, Advocate Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Khushboo Kataruka, Advocate Mr. Tarun Kumar Mahato, AC to AG

¶11

------

¶12

02/ 14^th July, 2026

¶13

1. Heard the parties.

¶14

2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of the Award passed under the National Highways Act, in favour of the petitioner, quantifying the compensation amount of Rs.52,91,296.00, amount has not been disbursed.

¶15

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Award is dated 21.11.2022 in Land Acquisition Arbitrator Case No.739/2021.

¶16

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NHAI submits that they have already filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, which is pending but fairly admits that there is no interim order. She relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “National Highways Authority of Indian Vs. Sheetal Jaidev Vade & Ors.”, reported in ( 2022) 16 SCC 391, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that particular case has held that the petitioner should approach the appropriate Court for executing the Award. In this case the Award was passed on 21.11.2022 and the petitioner filed the

¶17

Page | 1

¶18

2026:JHHC:20756

¶19

petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on 15.10.2025, only after receiving the copy of the Award through email.

¶20

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “National Highways Authority of Indian Vs. Sheetal Jaidev Vade & Ors.” reported in ( 2022) 16 SCC 391 in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 has held as under: -

¶21

“ 10. Apart from the fact that the award dated 12-6-2018 has been challenged by the NHAI by initiating proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act which are reported to be pending, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the reliefs to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, when the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court is to be executed by initiating an execution proceeding before the executing court concerned. But, by passing the impugned order/directions the High Court has virtually converted itself into executing court.

¶22

11. Therefore, once the original writ petitioner was having an efficacious, alternative remedy to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, by initiating an appropriate execution proceeding before the competent executing court, the High Court ought to have relegated the original writ petitioners to avail the said remedy instead of entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was filed to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court. If the High Courts convert itself to the executing court and entertain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court, the High Courts would be flooded with the writ petitions to execute awards passed by the learned arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitral Court.”

¶23

6. Further, the following directions were given by the Hon’ble

¶24

Supreme Court in paragraph No.13 onwards, which is as under: -

¶25

“13. In view of the above discussion, we would have set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court on the aforesaid ground alone. However, taking into consideration the similar order passed by this Court in Saraswatibai Chandrakant Shinde [NHAI v. Saraswatibai Chandrakant Shinde, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1115] , we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present proceedings/appeal with the following directions:

¶26

13.1. The NHAI shall deposit 50% of the compensation amount, as awarded by the Arbitral Court, with the executing court within a period of four weeks. The said amount shall be released to the landowners unconditionally.

¶27

13.2. The learned District Court, before whom the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act are pending, shall make an endeavour to decide such proceedings within a period of six months from the next date of hearing before the said court.

¶28

13.3. The balance amount of compensation as per the award to be passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, shall be deposited by the NHAI with the executing court within four weeks after such determination. The said amount shall also be released by the executing court in favour of the landowners subject to the rights and remedies available to the parties in law.

¶29

7. Considering the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and following the same, I direct the petitioner to

¶30

Page | 2

¶31

2026:JHHC:20756

¶32

approach the Executing Court to execute the Award. 8. In the meantime, the directions given in Paragraph No.13 of the judgment will be complied with by the respondents also by depositing 50% of the compensation amount before the Executing Court immediately, within a week of filing of the Executing proceeding. 9. Once the execution case is filed, the petitioner will communicate the same to the authority concerned, who will deposit the 50% amount immediately within a week thereafter. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of .

¶33

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶34

14^th July, 2026 S.K.D/CP-2

¶35

Uploaded on 15.07.2026

¶36

Page | 3

M/S Ram Janki Electrocasting Pvt. Ltd., Rep. Thro One of Its Director, Sri Binod Kumar Agarwal v. the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ram Janki Electrocasting Pvt. Ltd., Rep. Thro One of Its Director, Sri Binod Kumar Agarwal v. the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jageshwar Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anikul Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Imtiyaj Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shila Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Revenue Registration and Land Reforms Department

Manish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanju Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand