$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 13.04.2026 + OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 116/2019, EX.APPL.(OS) 939/2019 (For Dir), EX.APPL.(OS) 2/2020 (For Dir), EX.APPL.(OS) 1080/2020 (For Dir), EX.APPL.(OS) 1151/2020 (For Dir), EX.APPL.(OS) 10/2021 (For Permission of travel out of India.), EX.APPL.(OS) 1108/2021 (For Dir), EX.APPL.(OS) 2853/2022 (For Dir), EX.APPL.(OS) 2854/2022 (For Dir), EX.APPL.(OS) 1368/2024 (For modification of the order dt.

04.12.2019.) & EX.APPL.(OS) 1116/2025 (For Dir)

VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) LIMITED .....Decree Holder Through: Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Ms.

Anushka Shah & Ms. Ekssha Kashyap, Advs.

versus PRANAV ANSAL & ANR. .....Judgement Debtors Through: Mr. Malak Bhatt, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Ms. Sukanya Joshi & Mr. Saahil Bahety, Advs. for JD-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

EX.APPL.(OS) 2852/2022 (For Attachment and sale of properties and issuance of Garnishee)

1. The present Application has been filed on behalf of the Decree Holder seeking the following reliefs:

“a. Direct attachment and sale of the properties listed in paragraph 5 and 7 of the present Application;

b. Direct attachment of the debts stated in paragraph 6 of the Application and consequently direct the proposed Garnishees to make payment to the Petitioner;

c. Alternatively, direct the Judgment Debtors to deposit the awarded amount with interest which as on 27.04.2022 is Rs. 385,40,82,657/- (Rupees Three Hundred and Eighty-Five Crores, Forty Lacs, Eighty-Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Fifty-Seven only), or furnish solvent security by means of Bank Guarantee to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court; and d. Pass any other order or orders that may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.”

2. At the outset, Mr. Sidhant Kumar, learned counsel for the Decree Holder, has handed over across the bar a list of properties which, according to him, can be proceeded with for the purpose of grant of the prayers as sought for in the present Application. The said list of properties is reproduced for ready reference hereinunder:

3. He, however, further submits that the property bearing Serial No. 3 in the said list of properties may be kept out of the purview of the present Application for the time being, as there is an apprehension of certain issues in relation to the said property.

4. Per contra, Mr. Malak Bhatt, learned counsel for the Judgment Debtors, vehemently objects to the continuance of the present proceedings and the grant of the reliefs as sought for in the present Application. He submits that in the event that this Court were to proceed with the matter any further, then it will have repercussions affecting the repayment plan that has been considered by the creditors. 5. In view thereof, he further submits that any order passed in pursuance of the present Application, in respect to the properties as set out hereinabove, would result in said properties being removed from the scheme of the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process, PIRP, thereby affecting the rights of the other creditors who have currently preferred claims before the Resolution Professional, RP

6. He further submits that the same runs contrary to the larger scheme of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, IBC which provides that the claims of creditors of various categories, including those arising out of judgments or awards are required to be lodged before the RP during the resolution process, as the idea behind such proceedings is to ensure that equanimity is maintained as between the various sets of creditors. He would submit that permitting the present Application to proceed would disturb such parity and result in a situation where the present Decree Holder, in effect, secures a preferential position over other creditors, which is impermissible in law.

7. He also submits that the amount awarded in favour of the Decree Holder has already been accounted for and is reflected in the propo