$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 25/2018 M/S NETHERLANDS INDIA COMMUNICATIONS ENTERPRISES LTD. .....Decree Holder Through: Mr. Satish Tamta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Debasish Moitra, Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Mr. Nishchay Dutt and Ms. Manavi Joshi, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA. .....Judgement Debtor Through: Mr. Manu Beri for Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advs. for Intervenor CORAM: REGISTRAR GENERAL SH. ARUN BHARDWAJ O R D E R % 18.08.2025 1. Vide order dated 11.07.2025, the Hon’ble Court has, inter alia, directed as under:- “….. 12. Learned counsel for the decree holder very fairly states that the amount may be released to the decree holder along with up-to-date accrued interest subject to his furnishing of security of an immovable property or any other security, which need not be in the form of a bank guarantee, to the satisfaction of the Registrar General. This security shall remain unencumbered till the time proceedings before NCLT are pending….. 26. The balance amount after remitting the amount due and payable to SBI shall be released to the decree holder subject to furnishing security for the released amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar General as described above…..” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/08/2025 at 12:39:15 2. Learned Sr. Advocate Sh. Satish Tamta for the decree holder submitted that an Indemnity Bond has been filed for the release of the deposited amount in terms of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Court. He further stated that, along with the Indemnity Bond, the financial statement for the year 2023-2024 has also been filed, and pressed for the release of the amount to the decree holder against the Indemnity Bond, considering the financial status of the decree holder. 3. It is, however, pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Court has categorically directed that the amount be released only against unencumbered security, till the pendency of proceedings before the NCLT. An Indemnity Bond, by itself, does not constitute sufficient security as envisaged in the Court’s order. Furnishing adequate security such as immovable property is necessary to safeguard the interests of the opposite party in the event of any future contingencies. 4. Accordingly, the request for release of the amount solely on the strength of the Indemnity Bond is declined, as it does not comply with the Hon’ble Court’s directions regarding proper security. The decree holder is directed to furnish adequate security in terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Court, failing which the release of the amount shall not be permitted. 5. The registry is directed to list the matter before this court as and when any security bond alongwith security document is filed by the decree holder for the release of the amount. ARUN BHARDWAJ REGISTRAR GENERAL AUGUST 18, 2025/ss This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/08/2025 at 12:39:15