SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 162

PANKAJ MITHAL, S. V. N. BHATTI
R. Savithri Naidu – Appellant
Versus
Cotton Corporation Of India Limited – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Udian Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Sunita Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhigya Kushwah, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, Adv. Mr. Rohan Rohatgi, Adv. Mrs. Shubhangini Rohatgi, Adv. Ms. Garima Jain, AOR

Judgement Key Points

The Supreme Court upheld that a judgment debtor cannot defeat a decree by alienating property after the decree is passed but before it is realized, especially in the context of execution proceedings. In this case, the Court found that the property purchased by the Appellant after the initiation of arbitral proceedings and the passing of the award should be considered as subject to the ongoing execution process, unless the sale was made without notice of the existing claim. The Court emphasized that transfer of property after the institution of proceedings or after the award is not protected, and such transfers can be challenged if they are intended to defeat the decree. The Court also clarified that the execution of arbitral awards is akin to executing a decree and that protections available to bona fide purchasers do not extend to those who acquire property with knowledge of pending litigation or claims. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the sale in question was liable to be set aside because it occurred after the proceedings had commenced and the award had been passed, and the Appellant failed to prove that she purchased the property without notice of the claim.


JUDGMENT :

S.V.N. BHATTI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. M/s Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles Limited, Avinashi Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore/Respondent No. 2 was a Public Limited Company, and on 30.06.2011, was incorporated as a Private Limited Company. The Cotton Corporation of India Limited, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore (“CCI”)/Respondent No. 1 primarily engages in the business of sale and purchase of cotton/cotton bales. On 22.01.1998, a sale agreement was entered into between the first and second respondents for the sale of cotton bales. On account of a dispute in recovery of the sale price of cotton bales supplied under the sale agreement dated 22.01.1998, the first respondent raised an arbitral dispute in AP No. 9 of 1999 for recovery of Rs. 37,51,380/- with interest and cost. On 11.06.2001, the learned arbitrator passed an award for a sum of Rs. 26,00,572.90/- with future interest at 18% per annum and cost. On 25.09.2001, Respondent No. 2 filed AOP No. 10 of 2006 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Coimbatore under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

3. The Appellant is the mother of the Managing Director of Respondent No. 2, wife of ex-director, and was also a non

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
      whatsapp-icon Back to top