JUDGMENT :

Nitin Jamdar, J.

1. These three Commercial Appeals challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24 August 2018 appointing court receiver on the properties. The impugned order was passed in a chamber summons taken out by the Respondents to execute a consent arbitral award. When the Appeals came up for admission, a preliminary objection was raised by the Respondents to the maintainability of the Appeals. By this judgment, we decide the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents. The narration of facts is thus limited to decide the maintainability of the Appeals.

2. Commercial Appeal No. 401 of 2019 is filed by Kakade Construction Company Ltd.; Commercial Appeal (Lodg.) No. 109 of 2019 is filed by Mr. Sanjay Kakade; and Commercial Appeal (Lodg.) No. 111 of 2019 is filed by Mrs. Usha Kakade. Mr.Sanjay Kakade and Ms. Usha Kakade are the Directors of Kakade Construction Company Ltd.

3. There were certain financial transactions between Kakade Constructions and the Respondents – Vistra ITCL and IIRF Holdings (referred to as the Respondents). A default was committed by Kakade Constructions. Arbitration proceedings ensued. The parties arrived at a settlement. Under the consent terms, the Respondents agreed to accept the reduced amount of Rs.178 crores with interest at the agreed rate as and by way of a concession. A consent award was accordingly passed on 14 July 2014 in respect of arbitration between Kakade constructions and the Respondents. The arbitration between the Respondents and the Directors of the Kakade Constructions that is, Sanjay and Usha Kakade continued.

On 25 July 2014, the first instalment of Rs.10 Crores as per the Consent Award was due and payable by Kakade Constructions.

Kakade Constructions did not pay the instalments. Kakade Constructions sought to dispute the validity of the Consent Award that it violated the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) but stated to have withdrawn the objection.

4. The Respondents filed an execution application on 30 March 2017 for the sum of Rs.276.73 crores, in this Court. By Chamber Summons (L) No. 137 of 2017, the Respondents sought an appointment of court receiver of the lands specified therein, under Order 21 Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

5. By filing an affidavit in reply on 31 July 2017, Appellants again objected that the Consent Award is a violation of FEMA. On 19 January 2018, the learned Single Judge appointed court receiver regarding the land and permitted the Respondents to request the Receiver to take formal possession of the said 22.95 acres of land at Kothrud, Pune. The Appellants filed Chamber Summons Nos. 160 of 2018 in the execution proceedings and challenged the validity of the Consent Award on the ground it violated the FDI policy and FEMA Regulations. The Appellants also filed one more chamber summons, being Chamber Summons No. 161 of 2018 seeking a modification of the order dated 19 January 2018 passed by the Hon'ble Court.

6. In these execution proceeding parties again arrived at a settlement. On 21 February 2018, parties tendered handwritten consent terms. Formal consent terms were signed and executed and were tendered before the Court on 22 February 2018. The Appellants gave undertakings to withdraw the challenges to the consent award and the order dated 22 February 2018, and it was so incorporated in consent terms. It was agreed that that the Appellants would pay Rs.260 crores to the Respondents in four tranches within a period of one year in settlement of the dispute. It was provided that in default, payment would be of the entire amount under consent award and execution of the assets of the Appellants, including the Directors. On 27 February 2018, under the consent terms and the order dated 22 February, the court receiver took possession of, two immovable properties at Pune. The Appellants filed their respective affidavits disclosing their respective assets before this Court on 8 March 2018. The Arbitral Tribunal termin