1 wp 9876 of 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9876 OF 2026 Hemendra Pranjivan Bosmiya and Ors. ... Petitioners versus Inderkumar Gupta … Respondent Mr. Ashok Kumar Upadhyay i/by M/s. A.R.Upadhyay and Co., for Petitioners. Ms. Aditi Bhatt with Mr. Nihal Lakhan, Mr. Omkar Kanegaonkar i/by Mr. Omkar Kanegaonkar for Respondent. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 1 SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Petition assails the order passed by the learned Civil Judge in R.D.No.2779 of 2019 which is filed to execute the arbitration award purportedly passed by consent, on 29 September 2019. By the impugned order, the executing Court has directed the Petitioners to disclose the information of their movable and immovable properties, including the bank accounts, stock holding, etc., in compliance of an earlier order dated 1 July 2025 passed on applications (Exh.26 to 29). 3. The learned Judge has recorded that though, in compliance with the earlier orders, the judgment debtors have produced documents, yet, it appeared that the judgment debtors have not made a complete disclosure. It was, therefore, necessary to direct the judgment debtors to comply with the SSP 1/3 2026:BHC-AS:36310 1 wp 9876 of 2026.doc said order by making true and full disclosure on oath. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, the very tenability of the execution Petition is in question, in view of the orders passed by the NCLT in Insolvency Resolution proceedings. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner had challenged the earlier order dated 1 July 2025 before this Court in WP No.10837 of 2025, which came to be dismissed by an order dated 12 August 2025 recording, inter alia, that the Petitioners would be entitled to raise the objections sought to be raised in the Writ Petition by adopting the proceedings as permissible in law before the executing Court. In the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge has not at all adverted to the objections raised by the Petitioners. 5. The aforesaid submissions do not merit consideration. The impugned order makes it abundantly clear that, in compliance with the earlier order, the judgment debtor Nos.1 to 4 did produce the documents. However, the disclosures made by the Petitioners did not appear to be full and correct. Thus, to ensure compliance of the earlier order, the executing Court was constrained to pass the impugned order. 6. The jurisdictional competence of the executing Court to pass such an order can hardly be questioned as under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the executing Court is empowered to direct the judgment debtor to make an affidavit stating the particulars of the SSP 2/3 1 wp 9876 of 2026.doc assets of the judgment debtor, where a decree is for recovery of money. Since Writ Petition No.10837 of 2025 which assails the principal order dated 1 July 2025 came to be dismissed, the challenge to the impugned order which is essentially passed to ensure compliance of the first order, is devoid of substance. 7. The Writ Petition, thus, stands dismissed. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 3/3 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 03/09/2026 22:11:54