$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgement reserved on: 12.01.2026 Judgement delivered on: 28.01.2026 + OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 146/2016 & I.A. 3174/2017 (Objections on behalf of the judgment debtors under Section 47)

ELECON ENGINEERING CO. LTD. .....Decree Holder Through: Mr. Sanjeev K. Sharma, Mr.

Rajiv Dalal and Ms. Dipti Singh Arya, Advocates versus CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR .....Judgement Debtor Through: Mr. Jainendra Maldahiyar, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G E M E N T

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Execution petition has been filed by the Decree Holder under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Act read with Order XXI Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, CPC, seeking enforcement of the Arbitral award dated 15.11.1993, Award, which was made rule of the Court vide Judgment dated 08.10.2002, passed in Suit No. 2730/1993, and subsequently modified by Order dated 11.02.2004 insofar as grant of post-decretal interest is concerned.

2. The said decree has attained finality, the challenge laid thereto having been dismissed, and the execution is resisted by the Judgment Debtor through I.A. No. 3174/2017, filed under Section 47 of the CPC, by which the Judgment Debtor has raised objections to the Execution Petition. In these circumstances, the fate of the Execution Petition is contingent upon the outcome of the I.A. No. 3174/2017

3. By way of the Execution Petition, the Decree Holder seeks satisfaction of the decree by recovery of the decretal amount aggregating to a sum of ₹1,31,75,495/-, computed in terms of the award and the decree, together with further interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 01.10.2016 till realization. In aid of execution, the Decree Holder has prayed for attachment of the movable and immovable assets of the Judgment Debtor, including the funds lying in its bank accounts, and for consequential directions to the concerned bank to issue a pay order in favour of the Decree Holder through this Court, besides seeking costs of the execution proceedings.

BRIEF FACTS:

4. The disputes between the parties were referred to arbitration, culminating in an arbitral award dated 15.11.1993 passed in favour of the Decree Holder, whereby the Judgment Debtor was directed to pay a sum of ₹47,00,484/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, as stipulated therein. The said award was made rule of the Court by this Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.10.2002 passed in Suit No. 2730/1993. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Judgment Debtor preferred an appeal being FAO(OS) No. 47/2003, which came to be dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 31.01.2003, thereby affirming the decree.

5. Subsequently, an application was moved by the Decree Holder seeking clarification and modification of the decree insofar as post- decretal interest was concerned. The said application was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 11.02.2004, whereby interest at the rate of 6% per annum was awarded on the decretal amount from the date of decree till realization. The decree, as modified, thus attained finality.

6. Thereafter, the Decree Holder instituted execution proceedings being Execution Petition No. 157/2005 before this Court seeking enforcement of the decree.

7. During the pendency of the said execution petition, the Judgment Debtor was declared a sick industrial company and a rehabilitation scheme was sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, BIFR on 03.05.2006. In view thereof, the Judgment Debtor invoked the bar contained under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, SICA . Accepting the said objection, this Court dismissed Execution Petition No. 157/2005 vide Order dated 25.09.2009 on the ground that the execution proceedings were barred during the subsistence of the sanctioned scheme.

8. The Decree Holder thereafter approached the BIFR by fili