ORDER

% 29.01.2024

1. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the judgment-debtor states that he has filed an application under Section 47 read with 151 of CPC seeking dismissal of the present enforcement petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction vide diary No. 178359 of 2024. The application has been called from the Registry and taken up for hearing. Let it be numbered.

2. The present execution petition has been filed under Section 44 to 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2006 seeking enforcement of the foreign award dated 08.12.2022, which was passed in favour of the decree- holder. The said award has been passed to the tune of USD 146,309,239.27 along with interest at the rate of 5.33% per annum.

3. Vide the application filed by Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the judgment-debtor has raised 3 objections.

4. Firstly, that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition as the sole basis for coming to this Court is given under para 71 of the execution which reads as under:

“71. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court is the “Court” as defined in the Explanation to Section 47 of Arbitration Act.

This is because, this Hon’ble Court is “the High Court having original jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the [Foreign Award]..” as the Respondent has several assets within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. In this regard, it is submitted that the Respondent owns and holds equity shares in several companies, which have their registered offices in New Delhi. i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The Respondent has the below mentioned shareholding in the following companies (whose registered offices are situated within the territory of this Hon'ble Court):

(a) 100% shareholding in Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited;

(b) 51% shareholding in BSES Yamuna Power Limited;

(c) 51% shareholding in BSES Rajdhani Power Limited; and (d) 3.06% shareholding in Indian Highways Management Company Limited.”

5. Secondly, he states that the shares of the respondent are in demat form in Mumbai and in view of Section 88(3) of the Companies Act read with Section 11 and 17 of The Depositories Act, 1996, it will be the Courts at Mumbai which will have jurisdiction.

6. In addition, he states that the reliance of the learned counsel for the decree-holder on the judgment dated 19.07.2022 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2006 in Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. vs. Reliance Infrastructure [2022] SCC OnLine Del [2112] is also without merit as there is no finding recorded in the said judgment that the assets of the decree-holder are situated within Delhi.

7. Thirdly, he states that the award is based on forgery and hence this Court in execution petition can set aside the award.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the decree-holder.

9. Section 88(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Sections 11 and 17 of The Depositories Act, 1996 read as under:

“Section 88:- Register of members, etc. (1)..... (2).... (3) The register and index of beneficial owners maintained by a depository under section 11 of the Depositories Act, 1996 (22 of 1996), shall be deemed to be the corresponding register and index for the purposes of this Act.

Section 11: Register of beneficial owner:- Every depository shall maintain a register and an index of beneficial owners in the manner provided in sections 150,151 and 152 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).

Section 17: Rights and obligations of depositors, etc.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the rights and obligations of the depositories, participants and the issuers whose securities are dealt with by a depository shall be specified by the regulations.

(2) The eligibility criteria for admission of securities into the depository shall be specified by the regulations.”

10. In the present case, there are 4 companies and all the 4 companies are incorporated in D