IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the directions to the directors to furnish details of their personal properties do not follow as a matter of course in every case of execution of a money decree against a company, as clarified by authoritative and binding judgments overruling the previous decisions.

JUDGMENT

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

1. The present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 08.05.2018 and 17.07.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge-07, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Execution Petition No. 46/2016, titled as Mukesh Kumar Singh vs. Management of Business India Television International Ltd. & Another (`Executing Court').

1.1. Vide impugned order dated 08.05.2018 the Executing Court directed the Petitioner herein:

a. To file the details of the bank account of the Petitioner herein for the period of three years (3) prior to passing of the Industrial Award till the date of passing the said order.

b. To file the details of the immovable and movable property held by him (i.e., the Petitioner herein) three (3) years prior to the date of passing of Industrial Award till the date of passing the said order.

c. To file his (i.e., the Petitioner herein) Income Tax Returns (`ITR's') from the assessment year 2002-2003 till 2017-2018.

1.2. Vide impugned order dated 17.07.2018 the Executing Court imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- upon the Petitioner herein for non-compliance of the aforesaid order dated 08.05.2018; and thereafter a final opportunity was given to the Petitioner to comply with the same.

1.3. The Respondent is the original Decree Holder of the Industrial Award passed against the Business India Television International Ltd (`Company' or `Judgment Debtor'). The Petitioner herein is the director of the said Company.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of present petition are as under:

2.1. The aforesaid execution petition seeks implementation of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal - II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 12.05.2004 (`Industrial Award') in favour of the workmen of the Company declaring that the lockout imposed by the Company after 14.02.2000 was illegal and unjustified. It was further directed by the Industrial Tribunal that all the workmen of the Company are entitled to the wages w.e.f. 14.02.2000 till date or the date from which the resignation of the concerned workmen became enforceable.

2.2. On 09.08.2014 execution proceedings were initiated by the Respondent i.e., Decree Holder and 51 other employees against the Judgment Debtor seeking execution of the Industrial Award.

2.3. On 12.03.2015 an order of warrants of attachment were issued against the immovable property of the Company bearing no. 268, Masjid Moth, Uday Park, New Delhi (`Masjid Moth property'). However, the warrants of attachment could not be executed as the property stood mortgage with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd; due to which the Respondent herein filed an application under Order XXI Rule 30 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (`CPC') before the Executing Court seeking warrants of arrest and detention of the Directors of the Company.

2.4. Thereafter, on 31.08.2015, the Executing Court directed the Judgment Debtor to file an affidavit disclosing the assets of the Company. In compliance of the same, after the affidavit dated 26.09.2015 was filed by the Petitioner herein, the Decree Holder moved an application under Order XXI Rule 41 of CPC on 16.10.2015 seeking a direction to the Directors of the company to (i) provide bank account details/annual returns of the other subsidiary/ holding companies; and (ii) their personal bank account details from the year 1994 till the date of filing the said application.

2.5. In pursuance to the said application, on 25.05.2016, the Executing Court directed the Directors of the Company to file their personal affidavit containing particulars enlisted at serial nos. (i) to (xii) of the said order. In compliance of the same, an affidavit dated 18.10.2016 was filed by the Petitioner herein, however, on 23.09.2017 the Executing Court directed the Petitioner herein to comply with the direction enlisted at para (iv) of the order dated 25.05.2016 as the said affidavit as per the Executing Court did not comply with the same. Thereafter, on the next dates of hea