Mrs Amila Singhvi & Anr. vs Mr Nitin Gupta

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 21.05.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 29.05.2026
Judgment uploaded on: As per digital signature~
+ EFA(COMM) 20/2026 CM APPL. 34939/2026 CM
APPL. 34940/2026 & CM APPL. 34941/2026
MRS AMILA SINGHVI & ANR. ..... Appellants
Versus
MR NITIN GUPTA ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Appellant : Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Mr. Swapnil Gupta
and Mr. Sajal Jain, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Ashish Mohan, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Shreshth Jain, Mr. Aurito
Mukherjee, Ms. Neha Buttan and
Mr. Nadeem Malik, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT
REPORTABLE
Per VINOD KUMAR , J.
1. This execution first appeal under Section 13(1A) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XXI Rule 58(4) of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:29:33
EFA (COMM) 20/2026 Page 1 of 13

the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) lays challenge
to the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by learned District Judge
(COMM)-02, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi (in short
‘District Judge’) in the Misc. Execution Petition No. 24/2025
titled as M/s Tirupati Paper Corporation v. International Print O
Pac Ltd.
2. Vide impugned order, the Executing Court i.e., learned
District Judge dismissed the following applications of the
appellants:
(i) An application under Section 47 CPC, seeking
dismissal of the execution petition on the ground of award
being nullity;
(ii) An application under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC seeking
setting aside of the attachment of the house; and
(iii) An Application under Order XXI Rule 59 CPC
seeking stay of direction of sale of the attached house.
3. The facts of the present case are that respondent (sole
proprietor of M/s Tirupati Paper Corporation) initiated arbitration
proceedings against International Print O Pac Ltd. (the company
in which the appellants are the Directors) for recovery of
outstanding demand for a sum of Rs.47,90,429/- pursuant to an
arbitral clause mentioned in the invoices exchanged between the
parties, which is reproduced hereafter:
“All disputes are subject to P.M.A. Delhi and
jurisdiction of Delhi Courts.”
4. International Print O Pac Ltd. duly participated in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:29:33
EFA (COMM) 20/2026 Page 2 of 13

arbitral proceedings, which culminated in publication of an
award dated 26.03.2022 in favour of the respondent for a sum of
Rs.82,39,537.88/-.
5. On an application filed by the respondent through its
proprietorship i.e. Tirupati Paper Corporation in the execution
proceedings, learned District Judge vide order dated 16.02.2026
lifted the corporate veil of the Judgment Debtor i.e. International
Print O Pac Limited, which is a company in which both the
appellants are the only Directors and held that the appellants
herein are the alter ego of the company liable to discharge the
liability under the award passed by the Arbitrator. Subsequently,
learned District Judge issued Non-Bailable Warrants vide order
dated 10.03.2026 against the appellants under Order XXI Rule 37
CPC.
6. The appellants challenged both orders dated 16.02.2026
and 10.03.2026 by way of two petitions under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India bearing CM(M) 493/2026 titled as
International Print O Pac Ltd. v. Mr. Nitin Gupta and
CM(M) 544/2026 titled as Amila Singhvi & Anr. v. Nitin
Gupta respectively before Delhi High Court (which are pending
consideration by a Single Judge of this Court).
7. A perusal of the trial court record would show that the
appellants filed abovementioned three applications under Section
47, Order XXI Rule 58 and Order XXI Rule 59 CPC raising
objections on three main counts against execution proceedings
contending thus:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:29:33
EFA (COMM) 20/2026 Page 3 of 13

i) the award is void ab initio as there exists no
arbitration agreement/clause between the parties;
ii) the award is illegal, null and void as the arbitrator
was appointed unilaterally by the respondent;
iii) the execution proceeding against the appellants-
Directors of the International Print O Pac Ltd. is non-est as
the Directors were never impleaded as a party to the
arbitration proceedings. More so as a company is a
different legal personality than its Directors.
8. Further, it was argued by the appellants before the
Executing Court that the attached property being the sole
residential house of the appellants cannot be ordered to be
attached and sold in the execution proceedings.
9. Vide impugned order, the District Judge dismissed all
these objections holding that an Executing Court can decide
neither the issue of non-existence of arbitration agreement nor
the issue of unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator as it cannot
go behind the decree/award. On the issue of attached property
being a residential house, learned District Judge held that there is
nothing on record to suggest that it is the only residence of the
appellants. It was held that an Executing Court cannot adjudicate
matters unrelated to attachment under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC.
Further, it was held that it was for the objectors/claimants to
prove that property was not liable to be attached. Learned
District Judge also rejected the plea of appellants herein that the
company and its Directors are separate legal persons/entities and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:29:33
EFA (COMM) 20/2026 Page 4 of 13

that liability of a company cannot be imposed upon its Directors
while citing the reason that the corporate veil of the appellants’
company has already been lifted.
10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.05.2026, the
objectors/Directors of company International Print O Pac Limited
have filed the present appeal.
11. Mr. Ashish Mohan, learned Senior Advocate for the
respondent has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the
maintainability of the appeal submitting that the appeal does not
lie against the order passed under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC. He
apprised the Court that there are already two pending petitions
filed before this Court against the execution orders dated
16.02.2026 and 10.03.2026 passed by the learned District Judge
and similar pleas have been put forward by the appellants seeking
relief against the said orders.
12. Mr. Tanmay Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants was
quick to counter this argument drawing our attention to Sub Rule
4 of Rule 58 of Order XXI CPC, which says that when any
objection has been adjudicated under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC,
such order shall have the same force and be subject to same
conditions as to appeal as if it were a decree. Therefore, it is
argued that impugned order is deemed to be a decree under Order
XXI Rule 58(4) CPC and an appeal would lie under Section 96 of
CPC. Resultantly, the appeal under Section 13(1A) of the
Commercial Court Act, 2015 is maintainable.
13. We have considered the rival submissions. Rule 58 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:29:33
EFA (COMM) 20/2026 Page 5 of 13

Order XXI CPC provides that whenever any objection has been
raised to the attachment of any property in execution of a decree
on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment,
the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the claim or objection.
Order XXI Rule 58(4) CPC holds that the adjudication upon such
objection would be treated as a decree. The issue as to whether
an appeal lies against a judgment under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC
has been discussed by a three Judges Bench led by the then Chief
Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the
case titled as Gurram Seetharam Reddy v. Gunti Yashoda
and another reported in 2004 SCC OnLine AP 694 . The
relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced as under:
“35. When Section 96 C.P.C. specifically provides for
appeals against decrees, and sub-rule (4) of Rule 58 of
Order 21 directs that the order passed under sub-rule (3)
thereof shall have the force of a decree, there hardly
exists any basis to deny such characteristics to such an
order. An interpretation to the contrary would have the
effect of setting at naught, the intention of the Parliament
in attributing characteristics of a decree to an order. In
view of a clear mandate under sub-rule (4) of Rule 58, an
order passed under sub-rule (3) thereof, partakes a
character of a decree for all practical purposes, more so,
in the context of availing the remedy of appeal. Same
reasoning holds good for the orders passed under Rules
98 and 100 of Order 21 C.P.C. Hence, there does not
exist any justification to treat the same as different, in
any way from decrees, at least in the context of deciding
the forum and provision for appeal. The question as to
what nomenclature is to be given to the appeals, needs to
be dealt with by the High Court or the District Courts, on
administrative side. Hence, we are of the view that the
judgment of this Court in Nookaraju's case (supra) does
not lay the correct proposition of law. Once it is held that
orders passed under Rule 58(3) and Rules 98 and 100 of
Order 21 C.P.C., are appealable under Section 96
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:29:33
EFA (COMM) 20/2026 Page 6 of 13

C.P.C., it is axiomatic that a second appeal is
maintainable against the order passed in such appeals.
Though this question is not referred to this Full Bench, it
is dealt with, to put an end to the controversy and
uncertainty.”
14. The above portion of judgment clarifies that as soon as an
order gets force of a decree, it becomes appealable under Section
96 of CPC, which provides that appeal shall lie against every
decree passed by a Civil Court. Section 13(1A) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides a right of appeal to a
person aggrieved by the judgment passed by a Commercial
Court. As the decree follows a judgment, the impugned order
takes form of a judgment.
15. Therefore, we find no substance in the submissions of
learned Senior Advocate for respondent and reject the
preliminary objection and accordingly hold that the appeal is
maintainable.
16. It was further argued by learned Senior Advocate for
respondent that the Rule 58 of Order XXI CPC has limited scope
and applies only to the objection to the attachment of a property.
Therefore, it is argued that the objector (i.e. the appellants herein)
cannot raise objection of the award being a nullity on the ground
of non existence of Arbitral clause, unilateral appointment of an
Arbitrator, etc.
17. We do not find merit in this argument. In our opinion, the
appellants, who are Directors of the Judgment Debtor i.e. M/s
International Print O Pac Limited, are within their rights to raise
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:29:33
EFA (COMM) 20/2026 Page 7 of 13

any objection including the award/decree being nullity as a part
of objections to the attachment order because they have now
stepped into the shoes of the company as the corporate veil has
now been lifted vide an order dated 16.02.2026 by the Executing
Court. Therefore, they can press all the grounds, which the
company was entitled to raise in Execution Petition.
18. Admittedly, the appellants have challenged the order dated
16.02.2026 vide which the corporate veil was lifted. As the
petition being CM(M) 493/2026 challenging this order is pending
before learned Single Judge of this Court, we would refrain from
passing any observation on this issue.
19. Similarly, the other petition being CM(M) 544/2026
against the order dated 10.03.2026 directing issuance of Non
Bailable Warrants (NBWs) against the appellants is pending
before learned Single Judge of this Court and we would refrain
ourselves from expressing any opinion on this aspect also.
20. Now this present appeal is limited to the following issues:
(i) Whether the Execution Court was right in refusing
to enter into the question of the award being nullity?
(ii) Whether the attached property is saved from
attachment and sale by Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC?
21. By now it is a settled law that the Judgment Debtor can
raise the issue of decree/award being a nullity at the stage of
execution. In Mahavir Prasad Gupta and Sons v. Govt. of
NCT of Delhi (2025 SCC Online Del 4241) a judgment dated
31.05.2025 (cited by learned counsel for appellants) it was held
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:29:33
EFA (COMM) 20/2026 Page 8 of 13

by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court that the plea of award
being nullity can be taken even at the stage of execution. Same
principle was reiterated by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Central Warehousing Corporation v. M/s Deen Dayal in a
judgment dated 13.11.2025 in FAO(COMM) 107/2024 .
22. In the present case, the appellants have raised serious
issues, which if answered in favour of the appellants would
render the award a nullity. The issues involved are as under:
(i) Whether the clause in question constitutes a valid
arbitration agreement between the parties or not?
(ii) If the first question is answered in affirmative,
whether the appellants or the company were not a
member of Paper Merchant Association Regd.,
Delhi (‘PMA’) and therefore are not bound by its
arbitration mechanism?
(iii) Whether the award passed by the Arbitrator suffers
from being appointed unilaterally by the respondent,
if so, its effects?
23. Perusal of the impugned order shows that these issues have
not been specifically dealt with by the Executing Court.
24. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that even if the
corporate veil is held to be validly lifted, attachment of the
residential house which is the sole residential property being used
for residence of the appellant is in the teeth of Section 60(1)(ccc)
CPC (amendment as applicable to Delhi), which is reproduced as
under :
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:29:33
EFA (COMM) 20/2026 Page 9 of 13

“Section 60 - Property liable to attachment and sale in
execution of decree.
(1) The following property is liable to attachment
and sale in execution of a decree, namely, lands, houses
or other buildings, goods, money, bank-notes, cheques,
bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, Government
securities, bonds or other securities for money, debts,
shares in a corporation and, save as hereinafter
mentioned, all other saleable property, movable or
immovable, belonging to the judgment-debtor, or over
which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power
which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the
same be held in the name of the judgment debtor or by
another person in trust for him or on his behalf:
Provided that the following particulars shall not
be liable to such attachment or sale, namely:—
xxx xxx xxx
(ccc) one main residential-house and other
buildings attached to it (with the material and the sites
thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and
necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to a judgment-
debtor other than an agriculturist and occupied by him.”
[Emphasis is ours]
25. It is argued by learned Senior Advocate for respondent that
the appellants did not take this plea in their three applications
before the Executing Court that the attached residential house is
the sole house of the appellants and they have no other residence.
Further, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent argued that
in the case of Sujata Kapoor v. Union Bank of India and
Others., reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 12184 , the Delhi
High Court had read down this provision. On the contrary,
learned counsel for the appellants argued that there may be some
inadvertence or mistake in drafting the application on the part of
the appellants but the onus lies upon the respondent to prove that
appellants have more residential house(s) other than the attached
one.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:29:33
EFA (COMM) 20/2026 Page 10 of 13

26. Learned counsel for appellants cited two judgments titled
Mohinder Singh (Since Deceased) Through Lrs and Others v.
Bimal Saxena, (Deceased) Through Assignee Virender Singh
and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6515 and N. V.
Ramami v. Government of Canada reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine Del 3246 and submits that the judgment of Sujata
Kapoor (supra) is per incuriam . It is argued that till date no
document has ever been produced by the respondent establishing
that the appellants reside in a property other than the attached
one. It is argued that the appellants cannot prove a fact in
negative. He pointed out that the respondent in all of its motions
has served the appellants at the very same address of the attached
house at which appellants reside.
27. We have considered the contentions of learned counsels
for the parties and the judgments of this Court cited by learned
counsel for the appellants. On perusal of the same, we hold that
the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellants lay
down the correct law on Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC.
28. Therefore, the next issue is as to whether the residential
property is the only residential house occupied by the appellants
or whether they have other residential houses.
29. It is true that the appellants in their applications did not
specifically aver that the attached house was the sole residence
with them, at the same time, the respondent has also not brought
any material before the Executing Court to show that the
appellants have other residential houses. In this scenario, it is for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:29:33
EFA (COMM) 20/2026 Page 11 of 13

the Executing Court to render a finding of fact on the issue as to
whether the appellants-Directors of Judgment Debtor (objectors
before the Executing Court) do not have any house other than the
attached one. In our opinion, the Executing Court should have
held an inquiry and should have proceeded to take the evidence
on this issue and answered as to whether the attached property is
saved by Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC.
30. We would like to observe that provision of Section
60(1)(ccc) CPC, which provides immunity from attachment,
clearly exempts one main residential house occupied by the
Judgment Debtor. The fact that the subject property is a
residential property and is occupied by the appellants is almost
admitted. Because the pleadings of the execution petition and
application for lifting the corporate veil filed by the Decree
Holder says so. So far as other part, ‘occupied by him’ is
concerned, there can be no quarrel because the memo of parties
mentions this address.
31. Thus, while setting aside the impugned judgment, we
direct that the Executing Court shall hear the parties afresh on all
the three applications filed by the appellants herein before it. For
disposal of the issue of exemption of residential house from
attachment under Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC, the Executing Court
may seek evidence from the parties and shall also decide the
questions specified in para 22 of this judgment and give a verdict
as to whether or not the award is a nullity.
32. Appeal is allowed accordingly.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:29:33
EFA (COMM) 20/2026 Page 12 of 13

33. It is made clear that nothing stated herein shall tantamount
to expression of any opinion on the issues to be decided by the
Executing Court, as directed above.
34. Further, we have not expressed our opinion on the issues
of lifting of corporate veil and issuing Non-Bailable Warrants
etc., which are already under consideration of learned Single
Judge of this Court in two petitions referred above.
35. The appeal alongwith the pending application(s) is
disposed of.
VINOD KUMAR, J
DINESH MEHTA, J
MAY 29, 2026
DD
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:29:33
EFA (COMM) 20/2026 Page 13 of 13