Nisha Sharma vs Intec Capital Limited - 2026 Supreme(Del) 1072

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Del) 1072

2026 DHC 8756
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Shail Jain, JJ.
Smt Nisha Sharma - Appellant
Versus
M/S Intec Capital Limited And Ors - Respondents
EFA(COMM) 28 of 2026, CM APPL. 63697 of 2026, CM APPL. 63698 of 2026, CM APPL. 63699 of 2026, CM APPL. 63700 of 2026, CM APPL. 63701 of 2026, CM APPL. 63702 of 2026
Decided On : 06-10-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. S. K. Srivastava, Ms. Shubhi Srivastava, Advs.
For the Respondent : Mr. Pranav Goyal, Ms. Pooja Chaudhary, Mr. Vishant Singh, Ms. Mreeganka Goyal, Advs.

Important Points

A transfer of property made after the institution of execution proceedings and service of notice is subject to the rights of the decree-holder under the doctrine of lis pendens and Section 53 of the TPA if intended to defeat creditors.

Subject

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings

Act Referred

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: S.64, S.60(1)(ccc), O.XXI R.54, O.XXI R.58, O.XXI R.102, O.XXI R.92
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: S.52, S.53(1)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: S.31(5), S.34(3), S.12(5)

Headnote

(A) Transfer of Property - Lis Pendens - Transfer of property after identification in execution petition and service of notice is subject to the rights enforceable in those proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. (Para 18, 20, 43)

(B) Execution Proceedings - Order XXI Rule 58 CPC - Adjudication of proprietary claims under Rule 58(4) has the force of a decree; subsequent objections on the same grounds or grounds that could have been raised cannot reopen the controversy. (Para 23, 24, 44)

(C) Fraudulent Transfer - Section 53 TPA - Transfer made after notice of execution, where consideration is paid subsequently and possession remains with the family, is presumed to be intended to defeat or delay creditors. (Para 25-31, 45)

(D) Arbitral Award - Execution - Scope of interference - An executing court may only interfere where the decree is a nullity for an inherent want of jurisdiction apparent on the face of the record. (Para 32, 34, 46) (E) Exemption of Residential House - Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC - Protection afforded to a residential house is personal to the Judgment Debtor and does not extend to a transferee. (Para 41)

Issues: Whether the transfer of a share in a property after service of notice in execution proceedings, but before formal attachment, removes the property from the reach of execution.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. K. Srivastava, Shubhi Srivastava
For the Respondents: Pranav Goyal, Pooja Chaudhary, Vishant Singh, Mreeganka Goyal

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present Execution First Appeal arises from the Order dated 03.06.2026 (the ‘Impugned Order ’) passed by the Executing Court in execution of the Arbitral Award. Judgment Debtor No.5, Smt. Manju Sharma, transferred her one-half share to her sister-in-law, the Appellant herein, Smt. Nisha Sharma, after service of notice in the Execution Petition but before a formal order of attachment. The Appellant was already a co-owner of the property and a member of the family residing in the same house.

2. The Appellant contends that, by the date of attachment, Judgment Debtor No.5 no longer held the share in the property and it was therefore unavailable for execution. The sequence of events is, however, significant. The property had already been identified in the Execution Petition and its attachment and sale had been sought. Judgment Debtor No.5 was thereafter served with notice of the Execution Petition and subsequently transferred the share to the Appellant. The question is whether that transfer took the share outside the reach of the pending execution or otherwise furnishes a ground to interfere with the auction sale. In the considered view of this Court, and for the reasons that follow, it did not.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. On 06.11.2021, an Arbitral award was passed in favour of the Respondent No.1/INTEC Capital Limited (‘Decree Holder’) against M/s SPA Engineering Services and the other Judgment Debtors for a sum of Rs.50,34,888/-, together with interest and costs. The Decree Holder thereafter instituted Execution Petition No.37/2022 on 13.05.2022 for execution of the Award.

4. In the Execution Petition, the Decree Holder identified House No.161, Gali No.4, Durgapuri Extension, Shahdara, Delhi as an immovable property of Judgment Debtor No.5 and sought attachment and sale of the properties so identified towards satisfaction of the Award.

5. On 08.06.2022, the Executing Court declined to proceed against Judgment Debtor Nos.3, 6 and 7 for the reasons recorded in that order. Notice of the Execution Petition was thereafter served upon Judgment Debtor Nos.1 and 5 on 30.07.2022.

6. After service of notice in the Execution Petition, Judgment Debtor No.5 conveyed her undivided share in the property to the Appellant. The conveyance followed service upon Judgment Debtor No.5 on 30.07.2022 and preceded the formal attachment. The Sale Deed records a consideration of Rs.32,50,000/-.

7. On 14.11.2022, the Decree Holder filed an application under Order XXI Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking attachment of the property. Attachment was ordered on 24.11.2022 and was effected on 17.12.2022. The order dated 24.11.2022 noted from the title documents that Judgment Debtor No.5 and the Appellant were co-owners of the property.

8. On 20.02.2023, the Appellant filed objections under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC. Her case was that Judgment Debtor No.5 had already transferred her share to the Appellant before attachment and, therefore, no interest of Judgment Debtor No.5 remained available for execution. The Appellant stated that she came to know of the execution proceedings only when the attachment order was affixed at the property in December 2022. She also pleaded that possession had been delivered to her under the Sale Deed. No reference was made in those objections to any earlier Agreement to Sell.

9. The objections were heard and dismissed on 24.04.2023. The Executing Court recorded that Judgment Debtor No.5 had transferred the share to her sister-in-law during pendency of the execution proceedings and that both were residing at the same address. The Appellant did not challenge that Order.

10. On 18.10.2023, the Executing Court directed sale of the undivided share of Judgment Debtor No.5. Judgment Debtor No.5 thereafter moved applications on 09.11.2023 and sought stay of the sale. Notice was issued on those applications, but immediate stay was declined. The auction was conducted on 11.12.2023.

11. The successful bidder w