Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Krm Tyres – Appellant
Versus
Arihant Fabrics – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virinder Aggarwal, J. (Oral)
An Ex-parte Award was passed against the petitioners for a sum of Rs.12,91,733/- along with interest and respondent Award holder filed an Execution Petition before the Executing Court and during the pendency of Execution Petition, notice was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners appeared through Sh. Amit Luthra, Advocate on 27.05.2025 and the Execution Petition was adjourned for filing objections for 31.05.2025 and on that date the petitioners-JDs failed to appear and petition was adjourned to 08.07.2025 for awaiting the presence of JDs and on that date list of property of JDs was called for 15.07.2025 from Award holder. On 15.07.2025 first impugned order was passed by the learned Executing Court whereby the application moved by decree holder for issuance of arrest warrants of petitioner Sandeep Jain was allowed and conditional warrants of arrest of JD were issued for 24.07.2025. JD appeared and filed an application for recalling the arrest warrants by supplying three bank account numbers of JD company for attachment and realization of the Award amount. That application was declined by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 24.07.202
The issuance of an arrest warrant against a judgment debtor must follow due process, including a proper application stating grounds for arrest, as mandated by relevant CPC provisions.
Judicial authority must follow mandatory procedures in executing arrest, including notice and inquiries into the judgment-debtor's means of payment.
The executing court cannot go behind the decree unless it is a nullity, and re-agitating objections already dismissed in a previous petition would amount to an abuse of process of law.
Arrest of a judgment-debtor for non-payment requires evidence of bad faith or willful neglect, and other execution methods must be considered first.
The executing court must establish wilful disobedience of a decree before ordering detention; failure to do so constitutes a jurisdictional error.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
