Bombay High Court

SHUBHESH DILIP JAINversusM/S SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD THROUGH GPA HOLDEER INDRAJEET MAHAJAN AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that the petitioner cannot be arrested unless the arrest complies strictly with Order XXI Rule 40 and Rules 37‑39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Summary

The petitioner, Shubhesh Dilip Jain, is a guarantor for a credit facility extended by Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. to an original borrower. Recovery proceedings were initiated, leading to arbitration where an award was passed, and subsequent execution applications were filed by decree holders. The petitioner feared imminent arrest under the execution applications filed at Exh. 76, 90, and 142. The Court noted that arrest of a judgment debtor is governed by Order XXI Rule 40 and Rules 37‑39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the impugned order did not prejudice the petitioner. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage, directing that any detention must follow the prescribed procedural rules, and gave no further directions.

Issues considered

Whether the order dated 20.04.2023 authorises the arrest of the petitioner, a guarantor, in execution of an arbitration award
Whether the procedural requirements of Order XXI Rule 40 and Rules 37‑39 of the CPC have been complied with

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XXI Rule 40, Rule 37, Rule 38, Rule 39

Subjects

guarantor
arbitration award
execution proceedings
arrest of judgment debtor
civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42807



                                                                     3-sr15.wp5017.2023


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             15 WRIT PETITION NO. 5017 OF 2023

                                     Shubhesh Dilip Jain
                                          VERSUS
                            M/s Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.
                     Through G.P.A. Holder Indrajeet Mahajan And Others

                                              ----
            Mr.B.R.Warmaa, Advocate for petitioner
            Mr.V.Y.Bhide, Advocate for respondent no.1
                                              ----

                                      CORAM :      AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                      DATE  :      SEPTEMBER 15, 2026

            ORDER :-

                       Considering that a very short issue is raised by the

            petitioner in this petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ

            Petition at admission stage.


            2.         Suffice it to note that the petitioner is a guarantor to the

            credit facility advanced by the respondent – financial institution to the

            original borrower. It appears that the recovery proceedings was

            initiated and the matter went before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator after

            hearing the parties passed the judgment and award.          In execution

            proceedings of the award, a number of applications were filed by the

            decree holder seeking execution for recovery of their dues.
                                    2                         3-sr15.wp5017



3.          The petitioner, as argued by Mr.Warma, learned advocate

for the petitioner, has apprehension of his immediate arrest following

the applications filed by the decree holder at Exhs.76, 90 and 142.

Suffice it to note, the process of arrest of a Judgment Debtor is

regulated by Order XXI Rule 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure

(C.P.C.). Rules 37, 38 and 39 of C.P.C. also speak about the procedure

for the purpose of effecting arrest of the Judgment Debtor.


4.          Prima facie it appears that the operative clauses of the

impugned order dated 20.04.2023 in fact do not cause any prejudice

to the petitioner. However, considering the restricted prayer

advanced by Mr.Warma, learned advocate for the petitioner while

arguing the matter, it is clarified that the order of detaining/jailing

the petitioner shall be subject to compliance to the process

prescribed in Order XXI Rule 40 of C.P.C. is followed. In view of this,

no more directions are warranted at this juncture.


5.          The Writ Petition stands disposed of.




                                 [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
                               ………..
KBP

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…