The Delhi High Court recently imposed ₹1 lakh in costs on a judgment debtor for pursuing a frivolous and repetitive execution-stage challenge to an arbitral award that had already been upheld at every prior stage, including by the Supreme Court. (Avneet Soni Vs Kavita Agarwal)
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the objection application, holding that the attempt to reopen settled jurisdictional issues amounted to an abuse of process and was squarely barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
"In the present case, raising objections regarding the jurisdiction to pass the Award, an issue that has already been conclusively settled, after more than a decade, and after previously withdrawing a similar objection, is an impermissible attempt to obstruct justice. While the Court acknowledges that parties are entitled to raise legitimate legal issues in accordance with the law, this entitlement does not extend to repeated obstruction or delay tactics. The conduct of the Objector in filing the present Objection Application is thus inconsistent with the principles of fair play, good faith, and the proper administration of justice," the Court held.
The Court added that the judgment debtor's actions reflected a calculated attempt to obstruct and delay the enforcement of an arbitral award, which had been conclusively adjudicated and was legally binding.
"Such conduct, if condoned, undermines the efficacy of judicial processes and the faith of litigants in the rule of law," the Court said.
The execution proceedings in focus were tied to an arbitral award dated December 31, 2014, under which the judgment debtor was directed to pay ₹4.80 crore along with interest at six per cent per annum, in addition to costs.
The dispute had its genesis in a failed transaction relating to a Hauz Khas property, following which a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was executed between the parties. The MoU contained a penalty clause as well as an arbitration agreement. When the transaction did not fructify and cheques issued towards refund were dishonoured, arbitration was invoked, and an arbitral award eventually passed.
At the execution stage, the judgment debtor (person ordered to pay an amount under the arbitral award) sought to resist enforcement of the award on the ground that the sole arbitrator had been unilaterally appointed, contending that such appointment rendered the award a nullity and incapable of execution.
Rejecting this contention, the Court noted that the very same objection had been raised and rejected at every earlier stage.
The challenge to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act had been dismissed by the arbitral tribunal in 2014. A petition under Section 34 had been dismissed by the High Court in 2015. An appeal under Section 37 had also failed in the same year. The judgment debtor had thereafter approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed as well in 2016.
Against this backdrop, the Court held that the objection could not be resurrected during execution proceedings.
Emphasising the doctrine of res judicata, Justice Shankar observed:
“The law does not permit a party to repeatedly challenge the same issue under different procedural guises once it has attained finality.”
The Court held that an objection which has already been raised, examined and conclusively rejected by courts of competent jurisdiction cannot be reopened at the stage of execution merely by branding it as a jurisdictional challenge.
“Allowing a party to reopen an issue of jurisdiction that has already been finally decided would erode the authority of judicial pronouncements and disrupt the orderly administration of justice," it said.
The Court also rejected the argument that execution proceedings are independent and therefore immune from the bar of res judicata, holding that the doctrine applies with equal force at the execution stage to prevent endless litigation and abuse of process.
Finding that the objection application was pursued by reiterating identical grounds over a prolonged period despite multiple adverse rulings, the Court concluded that the conduct warranted the imposition of costs. Holding the application to be wholly untenable, it dismissed the objections with ₹1 lakh costs and permitted execution of the arbitral award to proceed.
The Court directed that the costs be paid by the judgment debtor/ objector within two weeks, with ₹50,000 payable to the decree holder and ₹50,000 to the Delhi High Court Bar Association.
The decree holder was represented by Senior Advocate Pawanjit Singh Bindra, with Advocates Kirtiman Singh, Madhu Sudan, Vikhyat Oberoi, Ankit Kakkar, Ravi Sharma, Nishita Gupta, Shivam Prakash, Shreya V. Mehra, Fazal Haroon, Deepti Mehra and Maulik.
The judgment debtor/ objector was represented by Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam, with Advocates Raghuveer Kapur and Sagar Aggarwal.
[Read Judgment]