The Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is personally liable for unsatisfied debts of the HUF, enabling execution against personal assets to enforce an arbitral award.

R.I. CHAGLA, J.

1. By this Interim Application, the Applicant / Decree Holder has sought interim relief in aid of enforcement of the final Arbitral Award dated 30th November, 2023 passed by the Sole Arbitrator (“the Award”).

2. By the said Award, the Sole Arbitrator has awarded a principal decretal sum of INR 12,52,53,938/- and interest on the principal decretal sum at 10% p.a. from the date of the Award (i.e. 30th November, 2023) till actual payment against the Respondent No.1 and costs of INR 22,25,000/- against the Respondents.

3. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a joint / common Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (Commercial Arbitration Petition No.149 of 2025), challenging the Award. By an Order dated 22nd April, 2025 read with Order dated 29th April, 2025, the execution of the said Award was stayed to the limited extent of paragraph 176(c) of the Award i.e. to the extent of “costs” component of the Award of INR 22,25,000/- conditional upon a 100% deposit of that sum, which deposit was thereafter made. Resultantly, the amount of INR 14,79,71,228/- under the Award remains admittedly unsatisfied and outstanding. There is no stay on recovery of the said amount.

4. This Court by an order dated 21st January, 2025 passed in the above Execution Application, directed the Respondent No.1 to file an Affidavit of Disclosure of assets / income. Respondent No.2 deposing and acting on behalf of Respondent No.1 as its karta, filed an Affidavit of Disclosure dated 21^st February 2025.

5. The Applicant had filed an Affidavit in Reply dated 5th March 2025 in order to show how the Affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 (deposing on behalf of Respondent No.1) makes disclosures which are deliberately selective, insufficient, incomplete and non- compliant.

6. It is the case of the Applicant that the Affidavit of Disclosure shows that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have clearly been siphoning / dissipating / diverting / stripping Respondent No.1 of assets / value during the pendency of the legal proceedings with an intent to defeat the Award, which the Applicant claims highlights its case for reliefs against Respondent No.1 / 2. Further, the Applicant claims that Respondent No.1’s Affidavit of Disclosure, even if taken on face value shows on admission that Respondent No.1 does not even have assets worth 5% of the decretal sum.

7. The Applicant has referred to an Order dated 5th May 2022 passed under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act against both Respondents and by which, the learned Sole Arbitrator had directed the Respondents to furnish security worth INR 4 Crores. The said Order was never challenged and in order to comply with the same, title deeds to immovable properties owned by Respondent No.2 worth about INR 4 Crores came to be voluntarily / jointly deposited by the Respondents with the learned Tribunal thereby securing the claim against Respondent No.1 as well as Respondent No.2, to the extent of about INR 4 Crores. This security was thereafter brought int