- (1.) Both the orders are completely without jurisdiction and travel way beyond the authority of an executing Court.
(2.) An arbitral award was put into implementation, doubtless by a company controlled by a seemingly notorious person. But the notoriety of the principal person in control of the award-holder could not have guided the result of the execution proceedings.
(3.) A money award had been obtained. There is no dispute that a copy of the award was contemporaneously served on the respondents herein. The respondents herein chose not to challenge the arbitral award dated August 31, 2015.;