:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9101 OF 2007 Al Habib Engineering (India) P.Ltd ...Petitioners Versus Goregaon Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd, Goregaon, Raigad and Ors. ....Respondents ====== Miss.Alpana Zaveri, Adv. for the petitioners. None for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 29th January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This Writ Petition challenges an order passed by the Executing court rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners. 2. It is undisputed before me that the first respondent had filed a dispute against the petitioners and there is an award in its favour. The award has been made over to the civil court for execution as a :2: :2: :2: decree thereof. 3. During the course of the execution of the same and when the civil court is seized of the Execution Application, the petitioner appeared and raised an objection. The objection is that the Award that is passed against the private limited company cannot be executed now, because the liability was that of the Directors of the petitioner and not of the company. The Directors are no longer associated with the petitioner. In other words, the Board has been replaced and now the new management has taken over. The liability is not of the company but that of the erstwhile directors personally. Further, the petitioner being a private limited company, it was incumbent upon it to fulfil and obey the Mandate of Section 124 and 125 of the Companies Act, 1956. 4. These objections have been rejected and that is how the subject petition. 5. Insofar as, the first contention is concerned, Ms.Zaveri could not satisfy me as to how when a loan :3: :3: :3: has been obtained by the company that the liability is not of the company but of the erstwhile Directors. No documentary evidence has been produced before the executing curt and in any event, the objection has been rightly rejected. It is well settled that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and entertain such objection for the first time. The first objection is therefore rightly rejected. 6. Insofar as the second objection is concerned, it is undisputed that the mortgage deed has been registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances. In my view, the objection with regard to the Charge/mortgage not being registered cannot be entertained at the belated stage. The argument is that the Section which speaks of registration of charges has not been complied with. Part-V of the Companies Act under which the aforesaid provisions appear, apply to mortgages as well. The argument is that the prescribed particulars of the Charge together with the instrument have to be filed with the Registrar for registration within 30 days from its creation. However, Proviso thereto indicates that the Charges can be registered :4: :4: :4: subsequently. Sub-section 2 of Section 125 clearly provides that any contract or application for repayment of money secured by Charge is not prejudiced by non-registration. 7. In my view, the executing court was right in refusing to take any cognisance of this objection. Once again that would require re-opening of the matter and going behind the Award. That apart, no particulars are set out in the objection petition in this behalf. In such circumstances, these are nothing but attempts to delay the execution of the subject Award. In such circumstances, the Executing Court has committed no error in refusing to entertain the objections. The objections are raised at a belated stage and to stall the execution. That would require going behind the Award, which is impermissible at this stage. For all these reasons, this is not a fit case to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of the India. Petition dismissed. No costs. *******