### Executing Court Must Adjudicate Whether Sole Residential House is Exempt from Attachment Under Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC

The respondent, a sole proprietor, obtained an arbitral award dated 26.03.2022 against International Print O Pac Ltd. for approximately Rs. 82.39 lakhs.

During execution, the Executing Court lifted the corporate veil on 16.02.2026, holding the appellant-directors personally liable as the "alter ego" of the company, and subsequently issued Non-Bailable Warrants against them.

The appellants filed objections under Section 47, Order XXI Rule 58, and Order XXI Rule 59 of the CPC, contending the award was a nullity due to the absence of a valid arbitration agreement and unilateral appointment of the arbitrator.

They further argued their attached residential house was exempt from sale under Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC.

The Executing Court dismissed these applications on 06.05.2026, ruling it could not go behind the decree and that the corporate veil had already been lifted.

The appellants challenged this dismissal.

1. Whether an appeal against an order passed under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC is maintainable under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

2. Whether an Executing Court is competent to adjudicate the question of an arbitral award being a nullity at the execution stage.

3. Whether the attached residential property is protected from attachment and sale under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC as applicable to Delhi.

Order XXI Rule 58(4) CPC, which stipulates that an adjudication upon an objection to attachment shall have the same force as a decree and is appealable under Section 96 CPC.

Gurram Seetharam Reddy v. Gunti Yashoda (2004 SCC OnLine AP 694).

Settled law that a plea of an award being a nullity can be raised at the execution stage, as affirmed in Mahavir Prasad Gupta and Sons v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2025 SCC Online Del 4241) and Central Warehousing Corporation v. M/s Deen Dayal.

Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC (Delhi Amendment), which exempts "one main residential-house... occupied by him" from attachment or sale.

Interpretation of Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC in Mohinder Singh v. Bimal Saxena (2024 SCC OnLine Del 6515).

The Court held that because an order under Order XXI Rule 58 is a "deemed decree" under sub-rule (4), it is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act.

It rejected the respondent's argument that directors cannot challenge the award's validity, noting that since the corporate veil was lifted, they "stepped into the shoes of the company" and could raise all grounds available to it.

The Court found that the Executing Court failed to specifically address the appellants' contentions regarding the non-existence of an arbitration agreement and the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator.

Regarding Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC, the Court noted that since the appellants resided at the attached address (as admitted in the Decree Holder's own filings), the Executing Court was required to hold a factual inquiry into whether the property was their sole residential house rather than summarily dismissing the plea.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 06.05.2026, and remanded the matter to the Executing Court to: (i) hear the three applications afresh; (ii) determine if the arbitration clause was valid and if the appointment was unilateral; and (iii) conduct an evidentiary inquiry to decide if the property is exempt from attachment under Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC.