Burden lies on judgment debtors to provide specific particulars to establish statutory exemptions under Section 60 CPC.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the SCR Treasury Account is exempt from attachment under the proviso to Section 60(1) of the CPC and the Provident Funds Act, 1925

The court held

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Commercial Court's order dated December 31, 2025

It also directed

the appellant failed to establish statutory exemptions for the account due to lack of specific proof

there was no procedural irregularity under Order XXI Rule 46A as the Garnishee had already complied with the attachment order

the arbitral award remains fully enforceable as no stay had been granted

No order as to costs was made

01Facts

Respondent No. 1 (Decree Holder) obtained an arbitral award against the appellant on July 16, 2024, for approximately Rs. 584.21 crores plus 12% interest

¶ 7

The appellant challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act but did not press for a stay of the award

¶ 7, 25.2, 34

Consequently, Respondent No. 1 filed an execution petition (CEP No. 14 of 2025).

¶ 1, 7

On March 3, 2025, the Commercial Court ordered the attachment of the appellant's South Central Railway (SCR) Treasury Account held with the Garnishee (State Bank of India)

¶ 1, 7

The appellant filed an application (CEA No. 92 of 2025) to set aside this attachment, claiming the account contained funds (Provident Fund and LIC premiums) exempt under Section 60(1) of the CPC and that the court failed to follow the mandatory garnishee procedure under Order XXI Rule 46A

¶ 4-5, 9

The Commercial Court dismissed the appellant's application on December 31, 2025, leading to this appeal

¶ 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the SCR Treasury Account is exempt from attachment under the proviso to Section 60(1) of the CPC and the Provident Funds Act, 1925

¶ 5

ii.2. Whether the Commercial Court violated the mandatory procedure under Order XXI Rules 46 and 46A of the CPC by attaching the account before issuing notice to the Garnishee

¶ 5

iii.3. Whether the appellant’s application challenging the attachment order was maintainable under Section 47 of the CPC

¶ 33

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 60(1) of the CPC, which lists property liable to attachment, and its proviso, which exempts specific funds like Provident Deposits and Life Insurance

¶ 10, 13

It relied on Govindan A v. Govindarajan KK to establish that the burden of proving an exemption lies on the party claiming it

¶ 11

The court interpreted Order XXI Rule 46 (procedure for attaching debt/property not in possession of the judgment-debtor) and Rule 46A (discretionary notice to garnishee), clarifying that Rule 46A applies after attachment under Rule 46

¶ 19, 21

Additionally, it applied Section 47 of the CPC regarding questions to be determined by the executing court and cited Dhurandar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University to emphasize the narrow "microscopic" scope of Section 47, which generally only permits challenges to decrees that are void ab initio or a nullity

¶ 30, 32

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 36 Section 47 Section 60 Section 21

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9 Section 34 Section 36

Provident Funds Act, 1925 Section 3

04Reasoning

The court found the appellant’s claim for exemption under Section 60(1) CPC unsubstantiated because the appellant failed to provide specific particulars or evidence showing what portion of the Treasury Account actually comprised exempt funds; a blanket claim over the entire account is insufficient to meet the burden of proof

¶ 11-13, 15

On the procedural issue, the court analyzed the sequence of Order XXI and determined that attachment under Rule 46 is achieved by a written order of prohibition

¶ 19, 23

Rule 46A notice is discretionary ("The Court may...") and follows attachment

¶ 21

Since the Garnishee (SBI) filed a memo confirming compliance and did not dispute its liability, the court held that further proceedings under Rule 46A were "unnecessary and irrelevant"

¶ 28-29

The court ruled that the application was not maintainable under Section 47 because the appellant was not challenging the validity of the decree (the arbitral award) but rather a subsequent execution order

¶ 31-33