Bombay High Court
HEMENDRA PRANJIVAN BOSMIYAversusINDERKUMAR GUPTA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The executing court is empowered under Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC to order full asset disclosure, and the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners challenged a Civil Judge's order directing them to disclose all movable and immovable assets for execution of a 2019 arbitration award. They argued that the execution petition was untenable due to orders of the NCLT in insolvency proceedings and that their objections should have been considered, especially after their earlier writ petition (WP No.10837/2025) was dismissed. The Court held that the executing court was correctly exercising its jurisdiction under Order XXI Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure to require an affidavit of assets, and that the dismissal of the earlier writ removed any basis to contest the current order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The judgment reaffirmed the executing court's power to ensure compliance with asset‑disclosure orders in money recovery decrees.
Issues considered
- Whether the executing court has jurisdiction to direct the judgment debtor to make a full asset disclosure under Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC in execution of an arbitration award.
- Whether the dismissal of the earlier writ petition (WP No.10837/2025) precludes further challenge to the asset‑disclosure order.
- Whether pending insolvency proceedings before the NCLT affect the enforceability of the arbitration award.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XXI Rule 41
Subjects
- arbitration award execution
- asset disclosure
- CPC Order XXI Rule 41
- insolvency proceedings
- jurisdiction
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:36310
1 wp 9876 of 2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9876 OF 2026
Hemendra Pranjivan Bosmiya and Ors. ... Petitioners
versus
Inderkumar Gupta … Respondent
Mr. Ashok Kumar Upadhyay i/by M/s. A.R.Upadhyay and Co., for Petitioners.
Ms. Aditi Bhatt with Mr. Nihal Lakhan, Mr. Omkar Kanegaonkar i/by Mr. Omkar
Kanegaonkar for Respondent.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 1 SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This Petition assails the order passed by the learned Civil Judge in
R.D.No.2779 of 2019 which is filed to execute the arbitration award
purportedly passed by consent, on 29 September 2019. By the impugned
order, the executing Court has directed the Petitioners to disclose the
information of their movable and immovable properties, including the bank
accounts, stock holding, etc., in compliance of an earlier order dated 1 July
2025 passed on applications (Exh.26 to 29).
3. The learned Judge has recorded that though, in compliance with the
earlier orders, the judgment debtors have produced documents, yet, it
appeared that the judgment debtors have not made a complete disclosure. It
was, therefore, necessary to direct the judgment debtors to comply with the
SSP 1/3
1 wp 9876 of 2026.doc
said order by making true and full disclosure on oath.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, the very tenability of
the execution Petition is in question, in view of the orders passed by the NCLT
in Insolvency Resolution proceedings. Learned Counsel further submitted
that the Petitioner had challenged the earlier order dated 1 July 2025 before
this Court in WP No.10837 of 2025, which came to be dismissed by an order
dated 12 August 2025 recording, inter alia, that the Petitioners would be
entitled to raise the objections sought to be raised in the Writ Petition by
adopting the proceedings as permissible in law before the executing Court. In
the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge has not at all adverted to the
objections raised by the Petitioners.
5. The aforesaid submissions do not merit consideration. The impugned
order makes it abundantly clear that, in compliance with the earlier order, the
judgment debtor Nos.1 to 4 did produce the documents. However, the
disclosures made by the Petitioners did not appear to be full and correct.
Thus, to ensure compliance of the earlier order, the executing Court was
constrained to pass the impugned order.
6. The jurisdictional competence of the executing Court to pass such an
order can hardly be questioned as under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 41
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the executing Court is empowered to
direct the judgment debtor to make an affidavit stating the particulars of the
SSP 2/3
1 wp 9876 of 2026.doc
assets of the judgment debtor, where a decree is for recovery of money.
Since Writ Petition No.10837 of 2025 which assails the principal order dated 1
July 2025 came to be dismissed, the challenge to the impugned order which
is essentially passed to ensure compliance of the first order, is devoid of
substance.
7. The Writ Petition, thus, stands dismissed.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
SSP 3/3
Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/09/2026 22:11:54
Checking your session…