Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 30.04.2025
AJIT SARIN .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Lalit Gupta, Mr.Anmol Ghai & Ms.Ishita Nautiyal, Advs
Through: Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, Sr. Adv.
JD-2
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. EFA(OS) 4/2025 & CM APPL. 25565/2025
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Execution Petition, being EX.P. 5/2008, inter alia, directing the appellant to file an affidavit of the latest list of unencumbered assets in terms of Order XXI Rule 41(2) read with Form No. 16A, Appendix E of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Decree Holder has itself filed a list of shares held by the Judgment Debtor No.2, valued at more than Rs.133 crores. He submits that for the said shares, the learned Single Judge, by the Impugned Order, has also asked the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to file an affidavit indicating whether the Judgment Debtor No.2 owns the aforesaid shares in the named entities. He submits that, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to have also directed the appellant to file the list of assets.
4. He further submits that the Execution Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 07.12.2016, restored on 01.08.2017, and eventually disposed of on 03.03.2020 on account of a settlement having being arrived at between the parties, with liberty to revive the same. He submits that the Execution Petition is yet to be revived and, therefore, without having done the same, no further directions could have been passed therein by the learned Single Judge.
5. We are unable to agree with the above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. The Decree, for the present, admittedly stands unsatisfied. Though, the Decree Holder filed a Report disclosing the number of shares that are held by the Judgment Debtor No.2 in various entities and names, the learned Single Judge, while seeking to attach those shares, has sought verification of the same from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. At the same time, the appellant has also been directed to file his list of assets.
7. The Impugned Order in so far as it directs the appellant to file list of assets, cannot be challenged before us in the form of an appeal.
8. On the plea of the appellant that the Execution Petition is yet to be revived, we may herein note that earlier also the learned Single Judge, by Orders dated 02.03.2023 and 02.02.2024, had directed the appellant to file an affidavit of assets. The said orders were challenged before this Court in the form of an appeal, being EFA (OS) 11/2024. The same was dismissed by this Court vide its Order dated 10.07.2024, observing as under:
have been assigned to the present applicant by virtue of amalgamation. The Court on this aspect observed that the liability of the judgment debtors would remain unchanged by reason of the amalgamation and that the judgment debtor cannot evade their liability on account of any irregularity allegedly committed by the decree holder.
10. We do not find any fault with the aforenoted observations of the learned Single Bench in the order dated 02.03.2023. In our opinion, the appellant-judgment debtor is bound to honour the settlement agreement and thus, a direction has rightly been issued to the judgment debtors No.1 to 3 to file their affidavit of assets and having failed to comply with the directions of the Court despite repeated opportunities, the imposition cost of Rs.25,000/- vide order dated 02.02.2024 is just and proper.”
9. Accordingly, we do not find any fault with the Impugned Order of the learned Single Judge. The appellant is bound to honour the Settlement Agreement and it is in furtherance of the same that the direction has been issued to the appellant to file his affidavit of assets. It is only a formality that the Execution Petition has not been restored by a formal order as further proceedings therein are being undertaken. The appellant cannot escape his liability only by sheltering behind such a formality.
10. Though we do not find any merit in the present appeal, the time for the appellant to file the affidavit in terms of the Impugned Order shall stand extended further for a period of two weeks from today.
11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J APRIL 30, 2025/rv/ik Click here to check corrigendum, if any