Bombay High Court
N R Agarwal Industries Ltd vs Daman Ganga Recycled Resources on 25 August, 2025
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
15-IA(L)-39150-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY AND ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 39150 OF 2024
IN
COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 36897 OF 2024
N R AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS )...APPLICANTS
V/s.
DAMAN GANGA RECYCLED RESOURCES AND ANR. )...RESPONDENTS
MrHrushi Narvekar a/w. Mr.Akash Agarwal i/by MAAK Legal, Advocate
for the Applicants / Judgment Creditors.
Mr.Archit Jayakar a/w. Ms.Namrata Vashisht i/by Jayakar & Partners,
Advocate for the Respondent no.1.
Mr.Amrut Joshi a/w. Mr.Yazad Udwadia and Ms.Trisha George i/by
Aryaan Legal, Advocate for the Respondent no.2.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 25th AUGUST 2025
P.C. :
1. Pursuant to earlier orders of this Court, today when the matter is
called out, Mr.Jayakar, learned Counsel, appears for the Respondent
no.1 and submits that although reply has been filed, however, the
Petition challenging the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, is listed tomorrow i.e. 26th August 2025 and this
ARTI
VILAS
KHATATE
15-IA(L)-39150-2024.doc
Court may consider suitably adjourning the matter. Mr.Jayakar also
raises a preliminary objection that although the Execution Applications
have been filed after two years of the award, a Notice under Order XXI
Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ("CPC") ought to have
been taken out, however, submitting that the said objection has not
been taken up in the reply.
2. Mr.Joshi, learned Counsel, appears for the Respondent no.2 and
also submits that reply has been filed and that his client was not even a
party to the Arbitration proceedings and had only taken over a unit of
the Respondent no.1 and therefore the Execution Application is not
maintainable against his client, however, submitting that no rejoinder
has been filed.
3. Mr.Narvekar, learned Counsel, appearing for the Applicants /
Judgment Creditors submits with respect to the Notice under Order XXI
Rule 22 of the CPC, that the award is of the year 2018 and that,
although the challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, is pending, however, there is no stay to the
execution of the award. That, the reply has been filed by the
Respondent no.1 and the Respondent no.2 and no useful purpose
15-IA(L)-39150-2024.doc
would be served at this stage in directing issuance of notice under
Order XXI Rule 22 of the CPC at this stage. That, the same will unduly
delay the matter and that in any event, the show cause notice is only to
the the Respondents to show cause as to why the decree should not be
executed against them and if the Respondents are appearing and have
filed replies, the same can be waived by this Court under Order XXI
Rule 22(2) of the CPC. As regards the filing of rejoinder to the replies
by the Respondents, Mr.Narvekar seeks some time to file rejoinders.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel and considered their
submissions.
5. As regards the issuance of notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the
CPC is concerned, no doubt if the application for execution is made
more than two years after the date of the decree or award, the issuance
of the said notice requiring the Judgment Debtor(s) to show cause as to
why the decree should not be executed needs to be issued. However, as
submitted by Mr.Narvekar, in the facts of this case, the award is of the
year 2018, there is no stay to the execution of the award and that
replies have already been filed by the two Respondents, therefore, in
my view, issuance of notice at this stage would cause undue delay and
15-IA(L)-39150-2024.doc
defeat the ends of justice. Accordingly, this Court waives the issuance of
notice under Order XXI Rule 22(2) of the CPC.
6. It is observed that the Commercial Execution Application as well
as the connected Interim Application is still on lodging number. Let
objections to the Commercial Execution Application as well as the
connected Interim Application be removed within a period of two
weeks and registered number be obtained, failing which, the
Commercial Execution Application as well as the connected Interim
Application to stand dismissed without further reference to this Court.
7. Mr.Narvekar has requested for time to file rejoinder. Subject to
the above, let rejoinder(s) positively be filed within a period of two
weeks with copy to the other side.
8. Also, subject to the above, list on 6th October 2025.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
