V.M. Kanade, J.

1. Appellant is challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge who was pleased to extend the precept order which was passed under Section 46 of the Civil Procedure Code in execution proceedings taken out by the Respondent-Award Holder/Judgment Creditor.

2. The questions which fall for consideration in this Appeal are as under:-

(i) In which cases corporate veil can be lifted by the Court and whether the concept of lifting of corporate veil is also available in execution proceedings?

(ii) Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in lifting the corporate veil in this case and whether the learned Single Judge was further justified in coming to the conclusion that BIIL and BIL was a single economic entity?

(iii) Whether any interference is called for in the order passed by the learned Single Judge?

3. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under:-

4. An International Award came to be passed in favour of Respondent – Vitol S.A. and against Bhatia International Limited (“BIL”) on 17/01/2011. As a result of the Award, BIL was supposed to pay an amount of Rs 443 crores alongwith interest to the Respondent-Award Holder/Judgment Creditor.

5. An application was filed by Respondent – Vitol S.A. for issuance of precept under section 46 of the Civil Procedure Code in respect of coal which belonged to the Appellant. In the application, it was contended that though Bhatia Industries and Infrastructure Limited was a Company established under the Companies Act, 1956 in 1993, it was a Group Company belonging to Bhatia Group and other Companies and it was under the control of Bhatia International Ltd (“BIL”) and Shri S.S. Bhatia was the main person behind all those Companies and other Companies which were fraudulently siphoning off the funds from BIL to defeat execution of the International Award and therefore it was prayed that though the goods may be shown to be belonging to BIIL, in fact, they belonged to the Group Companies and therefore they were liable to be attached in execution of the International Award.

6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2 produced material to show that if the corporate veil of two Companies was lifted, it would show that it was a single entity and therefore the order of attachment may be passed in respect of the goods owned by the Appellant.

7. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the Respondent No.2 and issued an order of attachment and the precept was extended by further period of two months.

8. Mr. Mustafa Doctor the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant firstly submitted that Respondent No.2 had misled the Court. He submitted that the precept order proceeded on the footing that the cargo of coal imported at Tuticorin Port belonged to BIL and on this basis asked for attachment of the coal. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge after coming to the conclusion that the coal was owned by BIIL, had yet issued precept order by holding that BIL was the owner of the coal which was imported at Tuticorin Port. Thirdly, it is submitted that the concept of lifting of corporate veil is not available in execution proceedings. He submitted that if the said concept is admitted, there are thousands of Companies which are formed by families and in all such cases the property of another Company would then be attached in execution of an Award. He submitted that the Respondent No.2 – Vitol S.A. were merely Creditors/Award Holders and as such the concept of limited liability of shareholding in Public/Private Limited Company could not be circumvented. He then submitted that finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in para 14 of the Order was not based on well recognized principles. He then submitted that the reliance which was placed by the learned Single Judge on certain judgments wh