Table of Content
▲
The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment strengthening the rights of decree-holders in execution proceedings. The Court clarified that a buyer who purchases property after an arbitral award cannot prevent attachment of that property if the transfer falls within the scope of the doctrine of lis pendens Supreme Court ruling principles.
In essence, the Court held that the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies even to money decrees arising from arbitral awards. Further, Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) bars such purchasers from resisting execution.This decision reinforces the principle that execution of a decree must not be defeated by strategic property transfers.
Background of the Dispute
The origin of the conflict dates back to January 22nd, 1998 when a textile manufacturer entered into an agreement with a state-owned enterprise to acquire cotton bales. As a result of the textile manufacturer defaulting upon payment, arbitration proceedings were commenced in 1999 for the recovery of ₹37.51 lakh.
An award of ₹26 lakh, 18% interest on the future amount, and costs was made by the arbitrator on June 11th, 2001; the award was enforceable under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as if it were a decree.A challenge to the award was rejected under Section 34 of the Act, rendering the award as final in nature as of 2013.
Meanwhile, separate recovery proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act by ICICI Bank. In 2015, a tripartite agreement resulted in the sale of one disputed property to Smt. Naidu, who paid consideration to the bank.
However, in 2019, the government company initiated execution proceedings for recovery of the arbitral award. In 2021, the executing court ordered attachment of the same property now standing in Smt. Naidu’s nameShe challenged the attachment, claiming she was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the arbitral dues.
Key Legal Questions Before the Supreme Court
The case raised crucial legal issues:
- Does the Supreme Court's lis pendens doctrine extend to money decrees?
- Can a transferee pendente lite resist execution under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC?
- Does dismissal of Section 34 proceedings remove the pendency element?
- Can SARFAESI proceedings override prior arbitral claims?
These questions directly impacted the enforceability of arbitral awards and execution jurisprudence.
Also Read: Karnataka to Distribute 10 Lakh e-Khata Certificates in Bengaluru in April
Supreme Court’s Analysis
A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti conducted a detailed examination of execution law principles.
Transferee Pendente Lite
The Court found that the transferee pendente lite is someone who purchased property after the lawsuit was initiated in which the judgement was issued. Because the arbitration began in 1999 and the ruling occurred in 2001, the sale in 2015 is clearly in that time frame.
The beneficial purchaser therefore takes the same position as the judgment debtor when we interpret the Supreme Court ruling under the doctrine of lis pendens.
Applicability of Order XXI Rule 102 CPC
Order XXI Rule 102 explicitly bars transferees pendente lite from resisting execution. The Court clarified that the relevant date is the institution of the original proceeding, not the pendency of the Section 34 challenge.
Therefore, even if no appeal was pending in 2015, the transfer remained subject to the earlier decree.
Doctrine of Lis Pendens and Money Suits
A major takeaway from the doctrine of lis pendens Supreme Court ruling is that it applies to money decrees as well. The Court rejected the argument that lis pendens is confined to property disputes.
Allowing transfers post-decree would render execution proceedings meaningless and encourage judgment debtors to defeat court orders.
Knowledge and Bona Fide Purchase
The buyer argued she had no knowledge of the arbitral award. However, the Court noted:
- She was closely related to the company’s management.
- She served as a non-executive director during the pendency of proceedings.
- The tripartite agreement was not produced before the court.
The Court concluded that she failed to prove absence of notice and could not claim bona fide purchaser protection under the doctrine of lis pendens Supreme Court ruling framework.
Why the Buyer Lost the Case
The appeal failed due to a combination of legal and factual deficiencies:
- She qualified as a transferee pendente lite.
- Order XXI Rule 102 barred resistance to execution.
- She failed to discharge the burden of proving lack of notice.
- The arbitral award remained unsatisfied.
- SARFAESI proceedings did not extinguish other lawful claims.
The Court emphasized that related-party transactions attempting to shield assets from execution carry significant legal risks.
Also Read: Ghaziabad Property Tax Hike Upheld: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Against Revision
Precedents and Broader Execution Law Principles
The judgement of the Court supported existing cases, and upheld that a decree is useful only when it results in a real measure of success for other parties involved in a dispute. The Court also noted an amendment to Order XXI CPC made in 1976 which was intended to stop the endless hindrance to the process of executing a judgement by the courts.
Accepting the buyer’s argument would reduce decrees to paper victories and trap execution in infinite litigation cycles.
Impact of the Doctrine of Lis Pendens Supreme Court Ruling
This doctrine of lis pendens Supreme Court ruling carries significant implications:
- Strengthens enforceability of arbitral awards.
- Protects decree-holders from asset diversion.
- Discourages strategic transfers during litigation.
- Clarifies that execution proceedings cannot be bypassed by related-party sales.
- Confirms that SARFAESI proceedings do not grant immunity from other creditor claims.
For property buyers, especially those dealing with financially distressed entities, this ruling serves as a cautionary precedent. Due diligence must extend beyond title verification to include pending arbitral awards and execution proceedings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal and upheld the attachment order. It directed the executing court to conclude proceedings within two months.The judgment firmly establishes that under the doctrine of lis pendens Supreme Court ruling interpretation, a post-award purchaser cannot defeat a decree-holder’s rights merely by asserting ownership.
The decision marks a decisive step toward ensuring that justice is not limited to obtaining decrees but extends to securing their actual enforcement.
Ans 1. Yes. The Supreme Court of India has clarified that if the sale happens after arbitration proceedings begin, the property can still be attached under the doctrine of lis pendens and Order 21 Rule 102 CPC.
Ans 2. Yes. The Court confirmed that lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies not only to property disputes but also to money decrees arising from arbitral awards.
Ans 3. A transferee pendente lite is a buyer who purchases property while litigation or arbitration is pending. Such a buyer cannot resist execution proceedings if a decree or award is passed.
Ans 4. No. Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act do not automatically extinguish other lawful recovery claims unless legally satisfied.
Ans 5. Order 21 Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars transferees pendente lite from resisting execution of a decree, preventing judgment debtors from defeating recovery through strategic sales.