The court affirms the limits of execution jurisdiction and emphasizes adherence to statutory norms in arbitration enforcement.
In a significant judgment dated December 17, 2025, the Delhi High Court set aside an execution order against Jamia Hamdard Deemed to be University, highlighting the limitations of execution court jurisdiction and the importance of adhering to statutory frameworks in arbitration enforcement. The case, Jamia Hamdard Deemed To Be University v. Asad Mueed, involved complex arbitration proceedings following a family settlement deed among members of the Hamdard family, which governs the management of various educational institutions including the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research (HIMSR).
The dispute arose when the executing court, tasked with enforcing an interim arbitral order, directed Jamia Hamdard, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, to issue consent for affiliation for 150 MBBS seats at HIMSR for the academic year 2025-26. Jamia Hamdard challenged this order, arguing that the execution court had overstepped its jurisdiction by adjudicating matters beyond the arbitral tribunal's limited mandate. The university emphasized that its withdrawal of the consent of affiliation was based on statutory compliance requirements laid down by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and other regulatory bodies.
The Delhi High Court, led by Judges Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, ruled in favor of Jamia Hamdard, stating that the executing court cannot exceed the scope of the arbitral tribunal's order or adjudicate regulatory compliance issues, which fall under the purview of competent statutory bodies. The court clarified that any support or cooperation directed by the arbitral tribunal must remain "within the confines of law," and the executing court erred by entertaining coercive processes not applicable to the nature of the arbitral order.
The judgment underscores the principle that execution proceedings cannot be used as a vehicle to circumvent statutory remedies or regulatory frameworks. The court also addressed the maintainability of appeals by non-signatories affected by enforcement proceedings, noting that such appeals are permissible when execution orders directly impact third-party rights.
The ruling provides relief to Jamia Hamdard, ensuring that its regulatory obligations and institutional interests are protected, while reaffirming the rights of statutory bodies to enforce compliance with legal norms. It highlights the intricate balance between arbitration enforcement and statutory regulation, setting a precedent for future cases involving non-signatories and complex institutional frameworks.
Bottom Line:
Arbitration and Execution - Executing court cannot exceed the jurisdiction of enforcing a decree or order and must strictly confine to its scope. Non-signatories to arbitration agreements can challenge execution orders if directly affected, subject to statutory frameworks.
Statutory provision(s): Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 17(2), Section 37(2)(b); Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXI Rule 32; UGC Act, 1956; UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2023; National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
Jamia Hamdard Deemed To Be University v. Asad Mueed, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2822715
