MADVAI AHLUWALIA Vs. VIMAL KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE was an execution application. The other was an application by some of the parties therein, being the respondent nos. 2(a) (b) (c) and (d) for dismissal of that application. They were supported by the other appearing respondents. All describe themselves as decree-holders.

(2.) THE history or the merits of the matter are not very important. But some facts may be noted in passing. On 28th June, 1975, two families, the Guptas and the Sharmas entered into an agreement for many purposes. Those purposes are not important at all at this stage. THE agreement had an arbitration clause. An arbitrator was appointed who made his award on 29th June, 1996. Some members of the Gupta family challenged this award. On 5th June, 1978, the award was set aside by this court. An appeal was preferred before its division bench. On 1st August, 1997 the order of the learned trial judge was affirmed by the bench. THE matter did not rest there. It was carried in appeal to the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India. Two Special leave petitions were filed. THEy were admitted and converted into civil appeals. THE appeals were heard by the said court. Finally, on 1st September, 2003, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of this court. THE consequence of this was that the award was upheld. In the concluding part of the judgment and order, the court observed that a proper proceeding may be initiated by the parties before the executing court, if the occasion so arose. It also said that the award made & published by the arbitrator was the rule of the court. Any transaction concerning the parties involved would be subject to this decree. THE executing court was directed to look into these matters.

(3.) NOW, between the date of filing of the execution application and the application filed on 5th December, 2011 I passed an exparte order on 1st November, 2011 in the execution application appointing joint receivers to make an inventory of the properties described in schedule I and VI of the tabular statement. An order of injunction was also passed restraining the respondents from dealing with those properties.