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

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1094

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
ALOK ARADHE, CJ, SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Yeshwant Shah and Others - Respondents
Appeal Nos. 104, 109 of 2019, Chamber Summons No. 55 of 2009, Execution Application No. 329 of 1997, Arbitration Petition No. 112 of 1997, Notice of Motion Nos. 162, 200, 428 of 2019, Interim Application (L) No. 32757 of 2022
Decided On : 12-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Venkatesh Dhond, Rohan Kadam, Vaibhav Singh, Radhika Indapurkar, Rahil Shah, Pranav Chandhoke, M.M. Vashi, Ankur Jain, Ram Singh
For the Respondents: Rohaan Cama, Mehul A. Shah

A third party to enforcement proceedings is only liable for breach of an injunction if it actively aids in the violation, whereas a party to the injunction is liable for its breach regardless of direct involvement.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30 and 17 - Execution of decree - Appeals challenging orders directing Appellants to deposit monetary value of shares transferred from the Demat Account without consent - Appellant CDSL not party to original proceedings; not liable for breach of injunction, no supporting evidence for aiding violation - Appellant Amu, party to injunction, found to have acted in breach, responsible for shares sold during injunction - CDSL’s appeal allowed, Amu’s appeal dismissed. (Paras 70, 74, 82)

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments on maintainability of appeals. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. further arguments and defenses raised. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. discussions on statutory interpretations. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
5. court's reasoning on the execution applicability. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. judicial observations regarding jurisdiction issues. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
7. comparison between the 1940 act and 1996 act. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
8. distinctions in appealability between act provisions. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
9. effects of the repealed provisions on current proceedings. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
10. final analysis on legislative intent. (Para 43 , 44)
11. consequential findings leading to the decision. (Para 45 , 46 , 47)
12. court's resolution of objections against appeals. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
13. determining cdsl's liability and defenses. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
14. assessment of amu's claims and defenses. (Para 58 , 59 , 60)
15. final conclusions on both appeals. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
16. conclusion and order set by the court. (Para 79 , 80 , 81 , 82)

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. These Appeals are filed challenging the order dated 9 January 2019 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in Chamber Summons No.55/2009 filed in Execution Application No. 329/1997. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has inter-alia directed the Appellants to handover the amount of Rs. 1,79,62,131.56/- to a private Receiver. The learned Single Judge has further directed the Appellant-Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. (CDSL) to transfer and deposit with the Receiver all shares lying in the Demat Account of Late Ashok Bimal Ghosh as on 6 May 2005 together with all the benefits thereon. Respondent No.7-CDSL as well as Respondent No.1-Amu Shares & Securities Ltd. (Amu) are aggrieved by the order dated 9 January 2019 and have filed Appeal No.104/2019 and Appeal No.109/2019 respectively.

Facts

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the appeals are as under:

Mr. Yashwant N. Shah secured Award dated 16 January 1987 from the Bombay Stock Exchange Arbitration Panel (Award No.79/1997) against Mr. Ashok Bimal Ghosh for principal sum of Rs.3,58,29,000/-. Ashok Bimal Ghosh challenged BSE Award in Arbitration Petition No. 127/1997 under Section 30 of the ARBITRATION ACT , 1940 (Act of 1940). On the other hand, Yashwant Shah applied for a judgment and decree in terms of the Award vide Arbitration Petition No. 112/1997 filed under Section 17 of the Act of 1940. On 29 September 1997, the Single Judge of this Court dismissed Arbitration Petition No.127/1997 filed by Ashok Bimal Ghosh and confirmed the Award as a decree of the Court. Ashok Bimal Ghosh was directed and ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 3,58,29,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Yashwant Shah filed Execution Application No. 329/1997 for execution of the decree dated 29 September 1997. Though Ashok Bimal Ghosh had filed Appeal No.63/1998 against the order of the learned Single Judge, apparently no stay was granted therein. In the meantime, Yashwant Shah also obtained decree dated 24 January 2000 in pursuance of a separate award against Ms. Lily Ghosh (wife of Ashok Bimal Gosh) in Arbitration Petition No. 410/1999 for the principal sum of Rs.34,51,570.50/- with interest. It appears that Lily Gosh was declared insolvent in Insolvency Petition No. 23/2002 taken out by the Award Holders vide order dated 14 December 2004.

3. Yashwant Shah passed away and Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are his legal heirs, filed Chamber Summons No.534/2005 in Execution Application No. 329/1997 against Ashok Bimal Ghosh (Respondent No.1 therein), one ABG Securities Pvt. Ltd (Respondent No.3 therein), LANS Communication (Respondent No.4 therein), Ashok Film and Finance (Respondent No.5 therein) and Lily Agro Products (Respondent No.6 therein) in which an ad-interim order was passed dated 6 May 2005 res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top