JSW STEEL LTDversusKRUNAL ENGINEERING WORKS THRU LEGAL HEIR

                                                                             5-WP-11278-2026.DOC




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 11278 OF 2026


                      JSW Steel Ltd                                              ..Petitioner
                             Versus
                      Krunal Engineering Works, a sole Proprietorship         …Respondent
                      concern (Through the legal heir of Kamlakar V
                      Salvi, Since Deceased), Krunal Kamlakar Salvi

                      Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, Sneha Jaisingh, Akshay Ayush and
                            Sannidhi Agrawal, i/b Bharucha & Partners, for the Petitioner.
                      Ms. Gauri K Jadhav, with Sneha M Dhatrak and Krutika Kharat, for
                            the Respondent.

                                                  CORAM:         N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                  DATE :         11th SEPTEMBER 2026


                      ORAL ORDER:

                      1.    Heard Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, the learned Counsel for the

                      Petitioner and Ms. Gauri K Jadhav, the learned Counsel for the

                      Respondent.
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
                      2.    The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 3 rd July 2026,
Digitally signed by
ARUN RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.09.11
                      whereby the learned District Judge, Alibag-Raigad, has declined to
19:21:09 +0530




                      dismiss the Execution Petition, being Darkhast No. 188 of 2016,

                      instituted by the Respondent to execute an Award dated 8 th May 2015,

                      passed by the Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Konkan

                      Region.


                      ARS                                  1/3
                                                         5-WP-11278-2026.DOC

3.    Dr. Chandrachud, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner,

submitted that the Award, for the execution of which the said Execution

Petition was filed, has itself been set aside by the Division Bench of this

Court in Writ Petition No. 12897 of 2016 and the connected

Applications, by a judgment and order dated 4 th October 2021. Though

the said judgment has been assailed before the Supreme Court by the

Award Holder and the Supreme Court has issued notice in the matter,

yet, there is no stay to the execution and operation of the decision of

this Court. Resultantly, as of now there is no Award which can be

executed.

4.    The learned District Judge despite noting all the aforesaid facts

has declined to dispose of the Execution Petition observing that since

the Civil Appeal No. 1016 of 2025 is pending before the Supreme Court,

it would not be in the interest of justice to dismiss the Execution

Petition, until the decision of the Supreme Court in the said Appeal.

5.    Ms. Jadhav, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, submitted

that the view taken by the learned District Judge is justifiable as the

Appeals are pending before the Supreme Court.

6.    This Court finds it difficult to accede to the submission on behalf

of the Respondent and also appreciate the view of the learned District

Judge. The fact remains that there is no Award that can be executed. In

the event the Respondent succeeds in the Appeal before the Supreme


ARS                                   2/3
                                                         5-WP-11278-2026.DOC

Court and the Award is restored, the Respondent can revive the

Execution Proceeding. Thus, there is no propriety in keeping Execution

Petition alive as the Award itself has already been set aside.

7.    Hence, the following order:

                                  :ORDER:

      (i)     The Petition stands allowed.

      (ii)    The Execution Petition; Darkhast No. 188 of 2016 stands

      disposed.

      (iii)   It is however clarified that in the event the order passed by

      this Court setting aside the Award is reversed or set aside by the

      Supreme Court, the Respondent will be at liberty to revive the

      Execution Petition.



                                             [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




ARS                                    3/3