Bombay High Court: In a matter concerning execution of an arbitral order under Section 17, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), a Single Judge Bench of Abhay Ahuja, J., observed that in absence of stay on arbitral award, disclosure orders and continuation of injunction granted by Arbitral Tribunal are justified in execution proceedings. The Court directed Meena Kumar Rohra (borrower) and Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan (guarantor) to disclose their assets and encumbrances thereon on oath within 4 weeks. The Court further directed that the injunction restraining the borrower from disposing of her assets shall continue till further orders.
Also Read: Ex-Jharkhand Minister Disproportionate Assets Case: SC Grants Bail
Background
The borrower, a close associate of the guarantor who was the promoter and Executive Chairperson of the Housing Development and Infrastructure Limited (HDIL), had taken loans from Punjab & Maharashtra Co-operative Bank Ltd. and subsequently diverted the amounts to HDIL. Consequently, an award was passed on 22 February 2024 directing the borrower to pay a sum of approximately ₹115 crores, along with other reliefs, in favour of Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd.
The dispute arose from an execution application seeking execution of an order passed under Section 17, A&C Act. It was submitted that the respondents had been in breach of the said order, and therefore reliefs including disclosures and continuation of the injunction were sought. On the other hand, the respondents submitted that an application under Section 34, A&C Act had already been filed challenging the award and sought time. However, they stated that there was no stay on the execution of the award.
Also Read: CAM Advises Hygenco Green Energies on $105 Million Capital Raise from IFC, Siemens and Fullerton
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that there was no stay on the execution of the award and directed both the borrower and the guarantor to file an affidavit of disclosure of their assets and encumbrances thereon, on oath, in terms of prayer clause (a) within a period of 4 weeks. Further, the Court observed that the injunction granted by the Arbitral Tribunal restraining the borrower from transferring, alienating, or otherwise disposing of her assets shall continue to remain in force till further orders.
The matter is now posted to 29 July 2026.
[Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd. v. Meena Kumar Rohra, Interim Application No. 2752 of 2026, decided on 17-6-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Saloni Kapadia a/w Daksha Kasekar and Shailja Beria i/by Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.
For the Respondents: Shubhra Swami a/w Sagar Shetty and Aprajita Mahto, Mayur Khandeparkar, Ashish Venugopal, Advocates.
Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 HERE
