The court found that the Execution Petition qua the award would not lie, and dismissed the Execution Petition No. 79/2014, closing EA No. 363/2017 and 68/2017. The objections of Objector Nos. 2 and 3 were dismissed, and EA No 833/2015 filed by objector No. 1 was disposed of. The objections of HTML were also disposed of, and costs were to follow the result.

JUDGMENT :

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

Preface

1. Principally I have been called upon to adjudicate upon Ex. P. 79/2014 (in short “Execution petition”). This execution petition has been filed by one Mr. Jayant Ghadia (in short, “Ghadia”). Ghadia has filed an application in the execution petition i.e. EA 363/2017. Via this application Ghadia has sought a direction to summon documents from the concerned Debt Recovery Tribunal. In the execution petition, Ghadia seeks enforcement of the award dated 28.1.2009 (in short “award”) passed by the Learned Arbitrator in the matter titled "Jayant Ghadia versus Hindustan Tradex & Manufacturing Private Limited and Ors."

1.1 The execution of the award is opposed by four persons who have filed separate applications in this behalf. These applications are numbered as EA 833/2015, EA 837/2015, EA 1122/2015, and EA 167/2016.

1.2 EA 833/2015 has been filed by one Mr. V.P. Gupta (hereafter referred to as “objector No. 1”). EA 837/2015 has been filed by Amna Bi (hereafter referred to as “objector No. 2”). EA 1122/2015 has been filed by a person by the name Kuldeep Singh Dalal (hereafter referred to as “objector No. 3”). EA 167/2016 has been filed by judgment debtor No. 1 i.e. Hindustan Tradex Manufacturing & Private Limited (hereafter referred to as HTML).

1.3 Besides EA 363/2017, Ghadia has filed another application in which the relief sought is directed against objector No. 1. This application is numbered as EA(OS) 68/2017.

2. Therefore, the tenability of the objections filed by various objectors and the applications filed by Ghadia, is in a sense, dependent on the conclusion that I would reach with regard to the sustainability of the execution petition.

Backdrop

3. Thus, in order to reach a conclusion either way, the following broad facts are required to be noticed.

4. The record shows that HTML (which had on its board at one point in time, one, Mr. Anil Shah as the managing director), secured a loan from State Bank of India. In lieu of the loan offered by State Bank of India, the following seven properties were offered as security:

(i) Flat no. 1209 & 1210, 12th Floor, 26, Kailash Building, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (hereafter referred to as “K.G. Marg Property no. 1”);

(ii) Flat no. 309, 3rd Floor, Kanchanjunga Building, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi -110001 (hereafter referred to as “Barakhamba Road Property”);

(iii) Property No. 2139, Old Bus Stand, Ganesh Pura-B, Tri Nagar, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as “Tri-Nagar Property no. 1”);

(iv) Property no. 1211, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (hereafter referred to as “K.G. Marg Property No. 2”);

(v) Sub-Plot No. 1480/1, Holding No. 116(D), Ward No. 17, Village Konka, S.K. Sahai Road, Circular Road, Ranchi (hereafter referred to as “Ranchi property No. 1”);

(vi) Sub-Plot No. 1480/2, Ward No. 17, Village Konka, S.K. Sahai Road, circular Road, Ranchi (hereafter referred to as “Ranchi property No. 2”); and

(vii) Property No. 2134, Old Bus Stand, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as “Tri Nagar Property No. 2”)

5. There are claims and counter claims concerning the ownership of some, if not, all the properties referred to above.

5.1 Ghadia claims that HTML owned K.G. Marg Property No. 1 and Barakhamba Road Property.

5.2 Likewise, it is claimed by Ghadia that Tri Nagar Property No. 1 is owned by a company by the name Aqua Cross Enterprises Private Limited (in short “ACPL”).

5.3 It is also the claim of Ghadia that K.G. Marg Property No. 2 is owned by a company by the name Yogi Trading Company Private Limited (in short YTPL).

5.4 Insofar as Ranchi Property No. 1 is concerned, it is claimed by Ghadia that the same is owned by an individual by the name Ms. Bibha Ranjan, who as per the record at one point in time was apparently appointed as an additional director in HTML, ACPL and YTPL.

5.5 Insofar as the remaining two properties are concerned, i.e. properties referred at serial No. (vi) and (vii), these were owned by, one, Mrs. Sangeeta Sh