IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Execution of decree – Requirement of notice under Order 21 Rule 22 (1) to persons enumerated therein is not a mere procedural courtesy but is very foundation of jurisdiction when execution is sought against estate of deceased judgment debtor.
(2) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act is a self-contained Code and is founded upon principles of party autonomy, expedition and finality.

JUDGMENT

ALOK ARADHE, J.

These appeals call in question the correctness of orders dated 06.03.2018 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Letters Patent Appeals, namely Appeal No(s). 320 and 372 of 2015. By the aforesaid orders, the High Court has stayed two orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.12.2014 passed in chamber summons no.243 of 2014 and chamber summons (L) no.1297 of 2013 in Execution Application (L) No. 1036 of 2013. The relevant facts for deciding these appeals briefly stated are as under.

FACTS

2. The appellant is the son of late Mr. Kantilal Dalal (hereinafter, referred to as ‘father’) and nephew of late Mr. Girdharilal Dalal (hereinafter, referred to as ‘uncle’). The first respondent is the nephew of the appellant, and the son of second respondent. The other respondents are cousins of second respondent. A fracture in the joint family-steeped in business dealings, shared ventures and mutual expectations, led to discord about the accounting and distribution of family funds. To resolve the dispute with his father in relation to the family assets, the appellant sought the intervention of sole arbitrator, Shri Dilip J Thaker. The sole arbitrator passed an arbitral award on 12.07.2010 in favour of the appellant. The father addressed the communication dated 23.07.2010 to the arbitrator alleging unfair conduct of arbitral proceedings and signalling his intent to challenge the arbitral award. A caveat was filed by the appellant, but challenge to the arbitral award dated 12.07.2010 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) did not materialise.

THE ARBITRAL AWARD TRAVELS ACROSS JURISDICTIONS: -

3. The appellant initiated the execution proceeding for execution of the arbitral award in Dubai, where the father resided. The Court in Dubai, declared the father as judgment debtor. However, the arbitral award remained unsatisfied. The appellant moved the High Court of Singapore which also recognized the arbitral award and held the father liable for US $12,951,078.03, a garnishee notice followed. The father responded to the notice by denying the knowledge of the execution proceeding and claiming residence in London. The uncle filed an affidavit asserting that his brother i.e., the father was not the sole beneficiary of Auro Mira Services Private Limited i.e., the concerned company but both of them were the directors and shareholders of the company. It was averred that corporate separateness insulated him from the repercussions of the arbitral award.

4. The father had executed a Will dated 16.09.1994 in favour of the uncle. The father expired on 08.03.2013. The appellant, therefore, required the uncle, who was a substantial beneficiary under the aforesaid Will executed by the father, to disclose the details of assets of the father. The uncle refused to divulge the details of the assets on the ground that the arbitral award dealt with the properties in which he had personal stakes, and he was not bound by the arbitral award dated 12.07.2010 passed in favour of the appellant, as he is not the party to the same. The uncle filed a Civil Suit, namely suit no. 470 of 2013 in the High Court of Bombay, seeking a declaration that the arbitral award dated 12.07.2010 is a nullity. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 08.07.2013 directed the appellant to file an affidavit in reply within a period of two weeks. The appellant thereupon filed an affidavit in reply in the said civil suit, which is pending.

EXECUTION PROCEEDING IN BOMBAY: -

5. The appellant filed Execution Application (L) no.1036 of 2013 in the High Court seeking execution of arbitral award dated 12.07.2010. The appellant also filed a chamber summons no.243 of 2014, in the execution application seeking issuance of notice under Order 21 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) and various reliefs inter alia for disclosure of assets, issuance warrants of attachment, sale and arrest.

THE ORDERS: -

6. The learn