Executing Court Does Not Cease To Have Jurisdiction After Allowing Execution Petition: Calcutta High Court

An executing court does not become functus officio merely because it “allows” an execution petition, the Calcutta High Court has held, clarifying that jurisdiction continues until the arbitral award is fully implemented and satisfied.

Dismissing an appeal filed by India Media Services Pvt Ltd, a Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya said that allowing the execution case was “merely nominal, contemplating further steps to be taken” and that “it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the executing court became functus officio.”

The dispute arose from a Nomination Agreement dated December 5, 2005 between India Media Services and SBPL Infrastructure Limited relating to transfer of rights in immovable property. India Media Services initiated arbitration seeking a declaration that the agreement was null and void and not specifically enforceable. SBPL sought specific performance through a counterclaim.

By an award dated October 27, 2020, the tribunal directed specific performance in favour of SBPL. The award was challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but a single judge dismissed the challenge on September 24, 2025 and allowed execution, directing India Media Services to execute the sale deed within a fortnight, failing which the Registrar would do so.

After the deed was not executed, the Registrar submitted reports noting objections raised to the draft conveyance. The Single Judge extended time and directed finalization of the draft, including comparison of the map forming part of the arbitral record.

India Media Services argued in appeal that once the execution petition had been allowed, the court lacked jurisdiction to pass further substantive directions. It contended that objections under Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure required judicial adjudication and could not be dealt with by the Registrar.

Rejecting the contention, the Division Bench held that an award for specific performance remains executory until the deed is finalised, executed, and registered. “Unless an award is satisfied, it cannot be said that the execution is complete,” the Court observed.

The bench clarified that the executing court's role under Order XXI Rule 34 is confined to approving or altering the draft conveyance. It does not permit re-adjudication of substantive disputes or revisiting the merits of the award.

Holding that the subsequent directions were procedural steps taken in furtherance of the award and not a modification of it, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the orders passed at the execution stage.

For Appellant (India Media Services Private Limited): Senior Advocate Krishnaraj Thaker, Advocates Dhruv Chadda, Mr. Aurin Chakraborty and Mr. Pradip Sancheti

For Respondent (SBPL Infrastructure Limited): Senior Advocates Jaydip Kar and Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury; Advocates Mr. Ratul Das and Mr. Gaurav Khaitan