UNION OF INDIA  Vs ATLANTA LTD & ANR. & ORS.

EFA(OS)(COMM) 1/2021 Page 1 of 4
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ EFA(OS)(COMM) 1/2021

UNION OF INDIA ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.
Ajay Digpaul, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr.
Vinay Yadav, Mr. Akshay Gadeock,
Mr. Sahaj Garg, Mr. R. Venkat
Prabhat and Mr. Kamal R. Digpaul,
Advs.

Versus

ATLANTA LTD. & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
% 21.01.2021
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

CM No.2129/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per e xtant rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
EFA(OS)(COMM) No.1/2021 & CM No.2128/2021 (for stay )
3. The appeal impugns the order dated 3 rd December, 2020 of the Single
Judge, in OMP(ENF.) (COMM.) No.10/2020 and EA No.64 4/2020 filed by
the respondent No.1 seeking enforcement/execution o f an arbitral award
having force of a decree, in favour of the responde nt No.1 and jointly and
severally against the appellant Union of India (UOI ) and respondent No.2
Government of Rajasthan. Vide the impugned order, the Single Judge has
(a) rejected the contention of the appellant UOI th at the
execution/enforcement petition in this court, witho ut obtaining any Transfer
Certificate from the courts at Rajasthan where the respondent no.1 had first
2021:DHC:232-DBEFA(OS)(COMM) 1/2021 Page 2 of 4
applied for execution, is not maintainable; and, (b ) granted four weeks’ time
to the appellant UOI to deposit Rs.30,83,32,410/- w ith the Registrar General
of this Court and has further observed that failing which, attachment orders,
as sought by the respondent No.1, shall be issued.
4. The counsel for the respondent No.1 appears on a dvance notice.
5. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) has conte nded that the Single
Judge has relied upon Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. Abdul Samad (2018) 3
SCC 622, which has noticed the conflict of opinion between different High
Courts qua application of Section 42 of the Arbitra tion and Conciliation Act,
1996.
6. We have at this stage interrupted the ASG and en quired, whether not
the view of this Court in Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Numaligarh
Refinery Ltd. (2009) 159 DLT 579 has been approved by the Suprem e Court
in Sundaram Finance Ltd. supra and in accordance with which, the
enforcement petition in this Court is maintainable without obtaining any
Transfer Certificate.
7. The ASG, after again going through Sundaram Finance Ltd. supra,
confirms that the view taken by this Court in Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd.
supra has been approved. The said view has since al so been consistently
followed in other dicta of this Court. Reference ma y be made to Religare
Finvest Ltd. Vs. Ranjit Singh Chouhan MANU/DE/2330/2012, The State
Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Global Steel Holdings Ltd. AIR
2015 Del 100, ICI-SOMA JV Vs. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd.
MANU/DE/2773/2016, Mukesh Sharma Vs. Roger Shashoua 231 (2016)
DLT 14 and Dr. S.C. Jain Vs. Sahny Securities Pvt. Ltd. 2018 SCC OnLine
Del 13202.
2021:DHC:232-DBEFA(OS)(COMM) 1/2021 Page 3 of 4
8. The ASG has then contended that the appeal prefe rred before the
Rajasthan High Court against the dismissal of the p etition under Section 34
of the Arbitration Act is listed next on 12 th February, 2021 and the
attachment orders be ordered to be deferred till a date after 12 th February,
2021.
9. The counsel for the respondent No.1 contends tha t though the
appellant UOI along with the State of Rajasthan had preferred the petition
under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act with respec t to the subject arbitral
award and which petition has been dismissed but the appeal referred to by
the ASG has been preferred only by the State of Raj asthan and no appeal
even has been preferred by the appellant UOI and th e appellant UOI cannot
thus seek stay of execution on the basis of the sai d appeal. It is contended
that the arbitral award, for recovery of money, tho ugh jointly and severally
against the appellant UOI and State of Rajasthan, a t least against the
appellant UOI, has become final, with the appellant UOI having not
preferred any appeal against the dismissal of the p etition under Section 34 of
the Arbitration Act.
10. Though the ASG has also contended that the resp ondent No.1 cannot
prefer execution, both before the Courts at Rajasth an as well as this Court,
but the Single Judge in the impugned order has reco rded the statement of the
counsel for the respondent No.1 that the Execution Petition preferred against
the appellant UOI before the Rajasthan High Court w as being withdrawn
and the counsel for the respondent No.1 today also states that an application
in that regard has already been filed.
11. In our view, the respondent No.1 is entitled to seek execution,
simultaneously against more than one judgment debto rs, even in different
2021:DHC:232-DBEFA(OS)(COMM) 1/2021 Page 4 of 4
Courts as long as the decretal amount is not recove red twice over.
Reference if any required, can be made to Prem Lata Agarwal Vs. Laxman
Prasad Gupta (1970) 3 SCC 440, State Bank of India Vs. M/s. Indexport
Registered (1992) 3 SCC 159, Shyam Singh Vs. Collector, District Hamir
Pur 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 693 and Cholamandalam Investment & Finance
Co. Ltd. Vs. CEC Limited 1995 SCC OnLine Del 240.
12. Before the Single Judge, the Execution Petition is stated to be listed
next on 29 th January, 2021 and the ASG expresses apprehension t hat on non-
deposit of the amount, warrants of attachment will be issued against the
appellant UOI on the said date.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the only order which we
deem proper is, to request the Single Judge to adjo urn OMP(ENF.)
(COMM.) No.10/2020, which is stated to be listed ne xt on 29 th January,
2021, without passing any attachment orders, to a d ate after 12 th February,
2021 and if after 12 th February, 2021, there is no stay of execution of t he
decretal amount against the appellant UOI, the Sing le Judge shall be entitled
to proceed with the execution in accordance with la w.
14. The appeal is disposed of.
15. We clarify that we have not gone into the aspec t of maintainability of
this appeal.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

SANJEEV NARULA, J.
JANUARY 21, 2021
‘bs’..
2021:DHC:232-DB