Delhi High Court Orders M/S Olina Professional Cosmetic P Ltd vs M/S Scion Chemical P Ltd on 22 December, 2021 Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2021 18:00:20 $~4 * + EX.F.A. 4/2019 & CM APPL. 8510/2019 M/S OLINA PROFESSIONAL COSMETIC P LTD..... Appellant Through: Mr. Yogender Uniyal, Adv. for Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. (M:9910836670) versus M/S SCION CHEMICAL P LTD ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kanika Baweja, Advocate. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER % 22.12.2021 1. This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court. 2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 8th February, 2019, by which warrants of arrest were issued against the Appellant/Judgment Debtor (hereinafter "Appellant") through its Directors, in execution proceedings being Ex.5880816 titled Scion Chem Pvt. Ltd. v. Olina Professional Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., as the Appellant had failed to file its reply and in view of its prior conduct. This execution proceeding arose out of award dated 8th May, 2015 passed by the MSME Facilitation Council, Konkan Region, Thane (hereinafter "MSME Council"), in Petition No.52/2014 titled M/s Scion Chem Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Olina Professional Cosmetics Pvt. Ld. Notably, this execution first appeal has been filed by the Appellant with the affidavit of Mr. Gaurav Jain, resident of Village Malapur Sandholip, Baddi, Nalagarh District, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, who claims to be one of the Directors of the Appellant. 3. Ld. counsel for the Appellant concedes that the award which was EX.F.A. 4/2019 Page 1 of 5 Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2021 18:00:20 passed on 8th May, 2015 by the MSME Council, has not been challenged by the Appellant. The total award is for the sum of Rs.16,83,000/ along with interest as per Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, out of which Rs.1,00,000/ has been paid before the MSME Council. The Respondent has sought execution of the said award and in the said execution proceedings, the impugned order has been passed. The further case of the Appellant is that the property against which warrant of attachment has been issued was a rented premises and the business of the Appellant has been shifted to Himachal Pradesh, due to which he was not served and hence the issuance of warrant of arrest is not justified. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Kanika Baweja, ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent, submits that the Appellant has been repeatedly evading the Court process. The affidavit which has been filed before the Executing Court now discloses sufficient assets and fixed deposits. Accordingly, as per ld. Counsel, no indulgence ought to be shown qua the Appellant. 5. A perusal of the record shows that there has been no challenge to the award passed by the MSME Council on 8th May, 2015. The operative portion of the said award which has attained finality reads as under: "i.The petition of the Petitioner is allowed. ii. The respondent is directed to pay Principal amounting to Rs.16,83,000/ (Rs. Sixteen Lakhs eighty three thousand only) & Interest as per section 16 of MSMED Act 2006 deducting Rs.1,00,000/ paid by D.D. No. 009711 dt.16/12/2012 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of Order" 6. Thereafter, once the execution petition has been moved, the matter is being adjourned from time to time and it appears that it is with some EX.F.A. 4/2019 Page 2 of 5 Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2021 18:00:20 difficulty that the Executing Court has been able to even serve the Appellant. On 7th June, 2017, the movable and immovable assets of the Appellant have also been placed on record and the ma