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

2025 Supreme(Del) 550

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Malvinder Mohan Singh and Other - Respondents
O.M.P. (EFA) (COMM.) No. 6 of 2016
Decided On : 20-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Arvind K. Nigam, Giriraj Subramanium, Nabik Syam,  Samridhi Hota, Shivam Chanana, Anindita Barman, Astha Ahuja, Shyra Hoon, Tanmay Arora, Kunal Chatterji, Angish Aditya
For the Respondents: Harish Salve, Rajiv Nayyar, Shyel Trehan, Gaurav Vutts, Pranav Sarthi, Krushi Barfiwala, Hitesh Jain, Vignesh Raj, Manjira Dasgupta, Shivalika Rubrabatla, Vidhi Jain, Apoorva Singh, Prachi Dhingra

The court cannot attach property outside its territorial jurisdiction; a precept must be issued to the relevant jurisdiction for execution.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 39 and 46 - Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Execution of a foreign arbitral award - The court lacks jurisdiction to attach property situated outside its territorial jurisdiction and must issue a precept to the appropriate court for execution. (Paras 25-34)

(B) Jurisdiction in Execution Proceedings - It is affirmed that attachment or execution against immovable property outside the executing court's jurisdiction is invalid; the decree must be transferred to a competent court for execution. (Paras 26-32)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a third-party purchaser of a commercial property, objected to the execution proceedings against said property initiated by the decree-holder following a foreign arbitral award, alleging lack of jurisdiction of the executing court over property outside its territorial limits.

Findings of Court:
Court confirmed that it cannot execute decrees against properties beyond its jurisdiction and directed to issue a precept for attachment to the court within the jurisdiction of the subject property.

Issues: Whether a court can attach property outside its jurisdiction and the validity of the sale deed executed under such circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined it has no power to attach properties beyond its jurisdiction, referencing sections 39 and 46 of the CPC, thus requiring a precept to be issued for execution. [Paras 25-34]

Result: Application allowed; precept issued.

Table of Content
1. factual basis for relief sought (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments regarding jurisdiction and attachment (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. counterarguments and claims made by decree-holder (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23)
4. court's analysis of powers under cpc (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 32)
5. concluding orders on precept and jurisdiction (Para 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT :

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

EX. APPL. (OS) 181/2024

1. By way of the present application filed under Order XXI Rules 58 & 59 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ("CPC"), the applicant – M/s One Qube Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Ashkit Properties Ltd.) ("One Qube") – seeks stay, recall and/or modification of order dated 15.12.2023 made in the present proceedings. The applicant also seeks stay of Warrant of Sale of Property dated 18.01.2024 issued by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram, Haryana pursuant to the aforesaid order based on a precept issued by this court under section 46 of the CPC in respect of property bearing Plot No. 20, Urban Estate, Sector-18, Gurugram, Haryana ("subject property"). At present, the subject property is a commercial building known as "One Qube."

2. Notice on this application was issued on 25.01.2024. Additional documents filed by the applicant in support of the application were taken on record vide order dated 14.02.2024.

3. Vide judgment dated 30.01.2024 passed by a Division Bench of this court in EFA(OS)(COMM) No. 2/2024, the sale of the subject property was restrained until disposal of the present application. Additionally, the applicant was directed to maintain status-quo as regards the sale or creation of any long-term lease (exceeding 30 years) in relation to the subject property.

4. The court has heard Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the decree-holder; and Mr. Harish Salve, Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, and Ms. Shyel Trehan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant.

BRIEF FACTS

5. The present proceedings arise from a foreign arbitral award dated 29.04.2016 rendered by the International Chamber of Commerce at Singapore in proceedings filed by M/s Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd. against several entities, who are now judgment-debtors in the present case. Objections under section 46 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act") against this foreign award were dismissed by a Predecessor Bench of this court vide judgment dated 31.01.2018, which dismissal was upheld by the Supreme Court vide order dated 16.02.2018 in SLP (C) No. 4276/2018. The award has accordingly attained finality and is to be executed as a decree of this court.

6. In the course of the execution proceedings, the decree-holder had inter-alia sought to attach and property bearing Plot No. 20, Urban Estate, Sector-18, Gurugram, Haryana ad-measuring about 13,519 sq. meters, namely the subject property, towards satisfaction of the award decree.

7. The present application has been filed by a company called M/s One Qube Realtors Pvt. Ltd., which company claims to have purchased the subject property from one M/s Torus Buildcon Pvt. Ltd ("Torus"). The applicant seeks stay, recall and modification of order dated 15.12.2023 passed by a Predecessor Bench of this court, whereby the subject property was "attached" towards satisfaction of the award decree; and since the subject property is situate outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court, precepts were directed to be issued under section 46 CPC in relation to the subject property. Furthermore, the applicant has also sought stay and setting-aside of Warrant of Sale of Property dated 18.01.2024 issued by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram pursuant to the precepts so issued by the Predecessor Benches of this court.

APPLICANTS SUBMISSIONS

8. The applicant's case before this court may be summarized as follows :

8.1. The applicant claims that it is neither a judgment-debtor nor a garnishee nor is it in any way relat

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