The court set aside unjustified interim directions from the High Court, emphasizing the need for balanced treatment of all parties in execution proceedings.

ORDER :

1. Application seeking permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeal is against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi in OMP (ENF.) (COMM) No. 127 of 2022 dated 12.09.2024.

4. The short facts are that one M/s. Medipol Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter “Medipol”) was incorporated in the year 1992, in which the appellant is one of the shareholder. Respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2, who are brothers, are holders of majority of the equity share capital. Respondent no. 1 also controls another proprietorship by the name JP Industries.

5. In 2021, disputes arose between respondent no.1 and respondent no. 2 in relation to ownership and functioning of various entities owned by them. On the intervention of family members and friends, a deed of separation (alleged consent award) dated 01.08.2021 was passed between them, vide which control of Medipol was to go to respondent no. 1 and JP Industries, with all its assets and liabilities would go to respondent no. 2. Before finalization of terms of settlement, respondent no. 1 chose to obtain ownership of JP Industries and respondent no. 2 was to take over Medipol. The Award was amended accordingly. Various disputes appear to have arisen inter partes. Both the respondents initiated execution proceedings before the High Court to give effect to the deed of separation/consent award.

6. In the said execution proceedings, the appellant(s) raised objections under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') primarily on the ground that they are holders of approximately 43% shares in Medipol and respondents herein are collusively executed their inter-se purported deed of separation against Medipol which is not a party to the arbitration proceedings. The High Court initially passed an order on 04.09.2024 observing as under:

"1. Arguments have been heard.

2. As last and final opportunity, in case the parties arrive at a settlement before 12.09.2024, the same shall be filed before Court, failing which the objections and applications will be decided on merits.

3. Parties are given one last opportunity to settle and reconcile their differences before the next date of hearing.

4. List on 12.09.2024."

7. Thereafter in modification of the said order, by the order impugned before us, the High Court on 12.09.2024 passed the following directions:

"19. In view of the above, in the first instance, the judgment-debtor shall make good the amount of Rs. 10.5 crores by depositing the same with the Registrar General, Delhi High Court within a period of 12 weeks from today.

20. As of today, no orders are being passed against M/s. Medipol. It is only directed that M/s. Medipol shall maintain the balance, which is available in its account. However, in case the due amounts are not deposited within the said period of 12 weeks from today by the judgment debtor, an order for attachment of the receivable of M/s. Medipol to the tune of Rs. 10.5 crores will be passed."

8. It is an admitted fact that an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC is still pending consideration.

9. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) submits that the interim order is pre-emptive in nature and has been passed without taking into account various objections that are being raised by the appellant(s) under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC.

10. On the other hand, Mr. M. Karpaga Vinayagam, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 raised some preliminary objections and referred to us the said objection(s) quoted in the counter affidavit which are to the following effect:

"O. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to consider the following points, while hearing the present petition, on the maintainability of the present Petition before this Hon'ble Court, as given here under:-

(i) That petitioners have concealed crucial facts related to family relationship among the Petitioners a