O R D E R

1. This Execution Petition (EP) is filed for enforcement of Foreign Awards dated 25.09.2024 and 29.08.2025 passed by the London Court of International Arbitration in favour of the petitioner and against Respondent No.1(R1)/Rusal and RTI Limited. The issue was contested before the Arbitrators and Awards were issued by a Panel of three (3) Arbitrators. On 28.07.2025, R1’s challenge to the Foreign Awards on merits was dismissed by the English Courts and therefore, according to the petitioner, the Awards have attained finality. Since the Awards were issued under the New York Convention, the petitioner claims to have filed for their enforcement in 11 jurisdictions where assets of the Award Debtor or entities controlled by the Award Debtor were located and this Execution Petition is filed against R1/Award Debtor and the entities controlled by and holding assets of the Award Debtor. The petitioner/Award Holder has specifically pleaded that:

a. R1, R2 and R3 are a single economic entity, i.e., Respondent No.2 (R2) & Respondent No.3 (R3) are 100% wholly owned subsidiaries and are alter egos of R1 and R1to R3 operate as a single economic entity, though they are separate legal entities and R1 controls the assets and affairs of R3 and R2.

b. R1, R2 and R3 have diverted assets of Award Debtor deliberately to frustrate enforcement of the Awards by dissipating R1’s assets in R2 and R3 to put it out of the petitioner’s reach.

2. On filing of this EXEP, the office had taken an objection with regard to the maintainability of the Execution Petition against respondents No.2 and 3 as they are not parties to the Awards. After hearing the parties at length and after considering the judicial precedents on the issue, vide orders dated 26.02.2026, this Court has overruled the office objection and thereafter, the Execution Petition was numbered and again placed before the Bench.

3. On 03.03.2026, the Execution Petition was taken up for admission and learned Senior Counsel, Sri K. Vivek Reddy, was heard on behalf of the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel from Delhi Sri K.K.Sharma, who submitted that he has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.2, was also heard provisionally though he did not have relevant papers served on him at that point of time. This Court had issued notice to the respondents and this Court was also inclined to direct respondent No.2 not to transfer its shares in Pioneer Aluminium Industries Limited to the extent of 26% of total shares of the said company as stated by the petitioner in his affidavit till the next date of hearing.

4. The said interim order is now contested and learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3, who come on record through their vakalats, have contested about the maintainability of the Execution Petition itself on the ground of jurisdiction. It is submitted that without adjudicating the issue of jurisdiction, the interim order ought not to have been passed. The matter was represented virtually by some of the counsel and therefore the matter was adjourned to 16.04.2026 for hearing of all the parties extensively on the issue of jurisdiction.

5. On 16.04.2026, the parties have advanced their arguments extensively on the point of jurisdiction to entertain the applications under Sections 47 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and also as to whether respondents No.2 and 3 are necessary and proper parties to the Execution Petition. This Court has reserved the issue of jurisdiction for orders and all the parties have filed their written arguments in support of their oral submissions made during the course of hearing.

6. Contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 46 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, beyond Award Debtor, the third parties are also covered. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the