The Delhi High Court has come down sharply on what it described as a deliberate attempt to stall justice, imposing ₹1 lakh in costs on a party that tried to reopen long-settled issues while resisting enforcement of an arbitral award.
The court made it clear that the execution stage is not a second chance to relitigate disputes already decided—especially when those disputes have travelled all the way to the Supreme Court and failed at every turn.
Dismissing the objections, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the challenge was nothing more than an abuse of process. The objections, raised more than a decade after the award and despite earlier withdrawals of similar pleas, were barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
The court noted that while parties are entitled to raise genuine legal issues, that right does not extend to recycling the same arguments to delay enforcement. Reopening jurisdictional objections that had already been conclusively rejected, the judge observed, ran contrary to fairness, good faith and the orderly administration of justice.
The dispute traces back to a failed property transaction in Hauz Khas. A memorandum of understanding between the parties included both a penalty clause and an arbitration agreement. When the deal collapsed and refund cheques bounced, arbitration was triggered. On December 31, 2014, the arbitral tribunal directed payment of ₹4.80 crore along with interest at six per cent per annum and costs.
Years later, at the execution stage, the judgment debtor attempted to block enforcement by arguing that the sole arbitrator had been unilaterally appointed, rendering the award void. The court rejected this outright, pointing out that the same objection had already been examined and dismissed repeatedly.
The tribunal had rejected the jurisdictional challenge in 2014. Subsequent challenges before the High Court, followed by further appeals and a petition before the Supreme Court, all met the same fate. Against this backdrop, the High Court held that resurrecting the issue during execution proceedings was impermissible.
The court emphasised that once an issue has reached finality, it cannot be revived under a different procedural label. Allowing such tactics, it warned, would weaken the authority of judicial decisions and encourage endless litigation.
Rejecting the argument that execution proceedings stand apart from earlier adjudication, the court said the bar of res judicata applies with full force even at the enforcement stage, precisely to prevent misuse of the process.
Finding the objections wholly untenable and aimed at delay, the court dismissed them with ₹1 lakh in costs. Half of the amount is to be paid to the decree holder and the remaining half to the Delhi High Court Bar Association. The costs are to be deposited within two weeks, clearing the way for execution of the arbitral award to proceed.
