Transferee pendente lite cannot resist execution of an arbitral award under Order XXI Rule 102 when the transfer follows institution of proceedings.

A transferee of the judgment-debtor's property after institution of the arbitral proceedings, and after the award, was treated as a transferee pendente lite and could not resist execution under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC. An arbitral award enforceable under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act stands like a decree, and pendency is linked to the proceeding that culminated in the award, not a later Section 34 challenge. The purchaser also failed to prove absence of notice of the existing liability, so the attachment in execution was maintained and the claim petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the purchaser's claim that the sale was without notice of the existing liability could displace the attachment in execution; (ii) Whether a post-award transferee could resist execution of the money award under Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the purchaser's claim that the sale was without notice of the existing liability could displace the attachment in execution.

Analysis: The sale deed was executed after the arbitral proceedings had been instituted and after the award had been made. The Court noted that the non-production of the tripartite agreement, which explained the earlier debt-related arrangement, weakened the plea of absence of notice. The independent recovery steps under the SARFAESI proceedings did not shield the judgment-debtor's property from execution of the award. On the record, the purchaser failed to establish that the transfer was free from notice of the existing claim.

Conclusion: The plea of purchase without notice was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether a post-award transferee could resist execution of the money award under Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: An arbitral award enforceable under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stands in the position of a decree. Order XXI Rule 102 bars a transferee pendente lite from resisting execution through the protections otherwise available to third-party claimants. The Court held that pendency for this purpose is linked to the institution of the proceeding that culminated in the award, and not merely to the later challenge under Section 34. A transferee after institution of the arbitral proceedings and after the award cannot defeat execution by setting up a later purchase, even in a money claim, because that would frustrate realization of the decree-holder's fruits of the decree.

Conclusion: The purchaser was treated as a transferee pendente lite and her claim petition was not maintainable against execution.

Final Conclusion: The attachment and the dismissal of the claim petition were upheld, and the execution of the arbitral award was allowed to proceed against the property.

Ratio Decidendi: A transferee of the judgment-debtor's property after institution of the proceeding that culminates in a decree or enforceable award is a transferee pendente lite and cannot resist execution under Order XXI Rule 102, including where the decree is for money and the award remains unsatisfied.

---