Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) C.O. Nos. 39 to 41 of 2019 and C.O. No. 197 of 2019 are taken up together, having emanated from the same proceeding under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act") initiated by the petitioner/award-holder for execution of an arbitral award.
(2.) In C.O. No. 39 of 2019 and C.O. No. 197 of 2019, the award-holder has challenged an order by which the executing court modified an order passed by the Delhi High Court, holding that when all the properties have been seized by way of an interim order, it was not required to file any affidavit in support of the properties of the award debtors in the court below but the said affidavit of assets were to be filed before the Delhi High Court. In the impugned order, it was first observed that the affidavit of assets was not required to be filed before the executing court but that the said court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the direction of the Delhi High Court regarding submission of the affidavit of assets. In spite of so observing, the executing court held that the affidavit of assets was not required to be filed by the judgment debtor in the court below, keeping the other conditions of the Delhi High Court's order intact.
(3.) By the order impugned in C.O. No. 40 of 2019 and C.O. No. 41 of 2019, an objection taken by the award-holder/petitioner, as regards maintainability of two applications of the award-debtors under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"), bearing Miscellaneous Case Nos. 13 and 14 of 2018, filed in the execution proceeding under Section 36 of the 1996 Act, was turned down, holding the said applications under Section 47, CPC to be maintainable.;