1. Execution of MSMED Act award — Disclosure of assets by judgment-debtor under Order XXI Rule 41, CPC. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 481
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, RENUKA YARA, JJ.
Atlantis Agritech Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Kendriya Bhandar and Another - Respondents
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1947 OF 2026
Decided On : 02-09-2026
Important Points
A judgment-debtor cannot stall asset disclosure under Order XXI Rule 41(2) CPC by filing a Section 47 CPC application, particularly under the MSMED Act, where the mandatory 75% deposit under Section 19 is a prerequisite for challenging the award.
Subject
Civil Law - Execution of Decrees
Act Referred
MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES DEVELOPMENT ACT : S.18(1), S.18(2), S.19, S.2(n)
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.21 R.41, O.21 R.41(2), S.47
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT : S.23, S.24, S.25, S.34
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.21 R.41, O.21 R.41(2), S.47
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT : S.23, S.24, S.25, S.34
Headnote
(A) Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 - Sections 2(n), 18(1), 18(2) and 19 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI Rule 41(2), Section 47 and Form 16A of Appendix-E - Execution of Arbitral Award - Disclosure of assets - Judgment-debtor required to disclose specific particulars of assets and debts due to them under Form 16A - Disclosure of receivables as percentages without stating corresponding amounts in rupees is vague, incomplete and does not satisfy the requirements of the prescribed form (Paras 15, 33).
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 47 - Scope of execution proceedings - Mere filing of an application under Section 47 to determine questions relating to the decree does not automatically halt all other proceedings in aid of execution, including the requirement to file an affidavit of assets under Order XXI Rule 41(2) (Para 24).
(C) MSMED Act, 2006 - Section 19 - Mandatory deposit of 75% of awarded amount - The requirement to deposit 75% of the award is a mandatory prerequisite for challenging an award - A challenge to the execution of a decree under Section 47 of the CPC is equivalent to a challenge to the award and cannot be used to circumvent the mandatory deposit requirement under Section 19 of the MSMED Act (Paras 23, 25).
Facts of the case:
A supplier obtained an award from the Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council. During execution proceedings, the judgment-debtor filed an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets in Form 16A. The decree-holder challenged this affidavit as vague, specifically noting that receivables were listed as percentages rather than specific monetary amounts. The judgment-debtor sought to keep the disclosure application in abeyance pending the adjudication of an application filed under Section 47 of the CPC, despite not having deposited the mandatory 75% of the awarded amount under the MSMED Act.
Findings of Court:
The Commercial Court erred in holding that the information provided in the affidavit was adequate. The disclosure of margins as percentages is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Form 16A. Furthermore, the filing of a Section 47 CPC application does not exempt the judgment-debtor from disclosing assets or from complying with the mandatory deposit under Section 19 of the MSMED Act.
Issues: Whether the disclosure of receivables as percentages satisfies the requirements of Form 16A of the CPC and whether a pending application under Section 47 of the CPC can stall the disclosure of assets pending compliance with Section 19 of the MSMED Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that specific particulars of assets are mandatory under Order XXI Rule 41(2) of the CPC and Form 16A; percentages are inadequate. It further held that the mandate of Section 19 of the MSMED Act is overarching, and a judgment-debtor cannot bypass the 75% deposit requirement by initiating proceedings under Section 47 of the CPC to stall execution aids.
Result: CRP No.1947 of 2026 is allowed and disposed of.
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 47 - Scope of execution proceedings - Mere filing of an application under Section 47 to determine questions relating to the decree does not automatically halt all other proceedings in aid of execution, including the requirement to file an affidavit of assets under Order XXI Rule 41(2) (Para 24).
(C) MSMED Act, 2006 - Section 19 - Mandatory deposit of 75% of awarded amount - The requirement to deposit 75% of the award is a mandatory prerequisite for challenging an award - A challenge to the execution of a decree under Section 47 of the CPC is equivalent to a challenge to the award and cannot be used to circumvent the mandatory deposit requirement under Section 19 of the MSMED Act (Paras 23, 25).
Facts of the case:
A supplier obtained an award from the Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council. During execution proceedings, the judgment-debtor filed an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets in Form 16A. The decree-holder challenged this affidavit as vague, specifically noting that receivables were listed as percentages rather than specific monetary amounts. The judgment-debtor sought to keep the disclosure application in abeyance pending the adjudication of an application filed under Section 47 of the CPC, despite not having deposited the mandatory 75% of the awarded amount under the MSMED Act.
Findings of Court:
The Commercial Court erred in holding that the information provided in the affidavit was adequate. The disclosure of margins as percentages is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Form 16A. Furthermore, the filing of a Section 47 CPC application does not exempt the judgment-debtor from disclosing assets or from complying with the mandatory deposit under Section 19 of the MSMED Act.
Issues: Whether the disclosure of receivables as percentages satisfies the requirements of Form 16A of the CPC and whether a pending application under Section 47 of the CPC can stall the disclosure of assets pending compliance with Section 19 of the MSMED Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that specific particulars of assets are mandatory under Order XXI Rule 41(2) of the CPC and Form 16A; percentages are inadequate. It further held that the mandate of Section 19 of the MSMED Act is overarching, and a judgment-debtor cannot bypass the 75% deposit requirement by initiating proceedings under Section 47 of the CPC to stall execution aids.
Result: CRP No.1947 of 2026 is allowed and disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- commercial law
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mohammed Omer Farooq
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Pranav
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mohammed Omer Farooq
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Pranav
Table of Contents
2. Award-holder sought further asset disclosure; award-debtor resisted, citing pending Section 47 application and adequacy of disclosed information. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Annexure-2 disclosure of margin percentages was vague and non-compliant with Form 16A; pending Section 47 application does not halt disclosure. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
4. Filing a Section 47 application does not exempt compliance with Section 19, MSMED Act, nor does it stall Order XXI Rule 41 disclosure. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 31 )
5. Impugned order set aside; respondent directed to file fresh affidavit disclosing all receivables with specific amounts within three weeks. (Para 34 , 35 )
6. Does filing a Section 47, CPC application automatically stay an Order XXI Rule 41(2) disclosure proceeding?
No. Mere filing of a Section 47 application does not automatically halt proceedings for asset disclosure under Order XXI Rule 41(2), CPC. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 31 )
7. Can a judgment-debtor under the MSMED Act bypass the Section 19 deposit requirement by filing a Section 47 application?
No. Filing a Section 47 application does not exempt the judgment-debtor from the mandatory 75% deposit requirement under Section 19 of the MSMED Act. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 31 )
8. What constitutes adequate disclosure of 'debts due' under Form 16A, Appendix-E of the CPC?
A judgment-debtor must disclose specific amounts receivable, not vague percentages. Mere indication of profit margins without corresponding rupee amounts is inadequate. (Para 9 , 10 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 33 )
ORDER :
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.
1. The present Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 16.06.2026 passed by the learned Commercial Court at Hyderabad. The impugned order was passed in a Commercial Execution Application (No.135 of 2025) filed by the petitioner/Award-Holder in CEP No.29 of 2024.
2. The petitioner is a ‘Supplier’ as defined under section 2(n) of The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (‘MSMED Act’) and is engaged in the business of manufacturing agricultural machinery and equipment. The petitioner supplied goods to the respondent No.1 under multiple supply orders issued by the respondent No.1 from August, 2019 to June, 2020. The respondent No.1 failed to make payment of the outstanding amounts. The petitioner thereafter approached the Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council (‘Council’) and filed a Claim Petition under section 18(1) of the MSMED Act. The Council initiated Conciliation proceedings between the parties under section 18(2) and thereafter an Award was passed on 10.06.2024 allowing the claim made by the petitioner and directing the respondent No.1 to pay Rs.41,86,98,166/- towards the principal amount, apart from interest and additional interest.
3. The petitioner filed an Execution Petition i.e., CEP No.29 of 2024 before the Commercial Court at Hyderabad pursuant to the Award. The Commercial Court allowed the CEP by an order dated 01.04.2025 and directed the respondent No.1 to file an Affidavit in Form No.16A of Appendix-E of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), furnishing the particulars of its assets, namely, its movable and immovable properties across India along with corresponding/relevant documents to satisfy the Award dated 10.06.2024 within a specific time frame.
4. The respondent No.1 filed an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets on 10.07.2025. The petitioner thereafter filed CEA No.135 of 2025 under Order XXI Rule 41(2) of the CPC seeking a direction on the respondent No.1 to file a fresh Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and produce certain documents on the ground that the Affidavit of Disclosure filed by the respondent No.1 is vague and not in compliance with the order dated 01.04.2025.
5. By an order dated 16.06.2026, the Commercial Court partly allowed CEA No.135 of 2026 directing the respondent No.1 to file a further affidavit of assets in Form No.16A of Appendix-E disclosing all its assets, debts, and trade receivables due to it from any entity for the purpose of satisfying the Award dated 10.06.2024. The Commercial Court however declined to grant the petitioner’s prayer for production of certain documents by the respondent No.1. The petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition against the order of refusal.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/Award- Holder submits that the contract-wise margin disclosed by the respondent No.1 does not amount to sufficient disclosure as required under Form No.16A of Appendix-E of the CPC. Senior Counsel further submits that the proceedings filed by the respondent No.1/Award-Debtor under section 47 of the CPC concerning questions to be determined by the Executing Court does not have any bearing on the disclosure application made by the petitioner/Award-Holder. It is also submitted that the respondent No.1 has failed to comply with the mandate of section 19 of the MSMED Act with reference to deposit of 75% of the awarded amount.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/Award- Debtor submits that the CEA filed by the petitioner should be kept in abeyance in view of the pending application filed by the respondent No.1 under section 47 of the CPC. Counsel submits that the issue as to whether the petitioner is a medium enterprise goes to the root of the matter. Counsel further submits that the respondent No.1 has disclosed assets in excess of the awarded amount including Rs.86.29 lakhs owed from one single entity and that no further information is required to be disclosed for the pur
