The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the executing court’s order, and held that an executing court cannot, while enforcing an arbitral tribunal’s Section 17 order, compel a non-signatory third party to issue a Consent of Affiliation or adjudicate statutory regulatory compliance.
Jamia Hamdard (Deemed to be University) filed the appeal challenging an order of the executing court which had directed it to issue Consent of Affiliation (CoA) for 150 MBBS seats at Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research (HIMSR) for the academic year 2025-26.
The impugned direction was issued during execution of an interim arbitral order passed under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even though Jamia Hamdard was not a party to the arbitration agreement or proceedings and had raised objections on University Grants Commission (UGC) and National Medical Commission (NMC) regulatory grounds.
The arbitral proceedings were initiated in connection to disputes arising out of a Family Settlement Deed that divided control of Hamdard institutions between two family factions. On 12 August 2025, the arbitral tribunal had directed the parties and Jamia Hamdard to “extend support” for restoration of 150 MBBS seats “within the confines of law”, while expressly declining to examine UGC or regulatory violations. Jamia Hamdard’s Section 37 appeal resulted in a clarification that it need not extend its support if the actions were not lawful.
HIMSR was projected as a constituent institution of Jamia Hamdard. However, the UGC consistently objected to this arrangement, citing the unitary nature of deemed universities under the UGC Regulations, 2023, which prohibit affiliation of other institutions. Hence, Jamia Hamdard withdrew previously issued CoA citing statutory and regulatory compulsion, following which the National Medical Commission (NMC) refused renewal of 150 MBBS seats for AY 2025–26.
The executing court invoked Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, held Jamia Hamdard’s withdrawal of CoA unlawful, and directed issuance of fresh CoA. This led to the present appeal.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the executing court travelled beyond the arbitral order, which only required support “within the confines of law” and did not mandate issuance of affiliation or override statutory regimes.
The Court observed that Order XXI Rule 32 CPC was inapplicable, as the arbitral order was not an injunction or decree for specific performance warranting coercive enforcement. It held that the executing court had no jurisdiction to decide the legality of withdrawal of CoA- which is a matter governed by the UGC Act, UGC Regulations, and NMC framework, and pending before competent statutory fora.
The Court held that an executing court must strictly confine itself to the arbitral order it is enforcing. It also emphasized that, what cannot be achieved through statutory processes cannot be secured indirectly through arbitral enforcement.
In result, the appeal was allowed in entirety and the impugned order directing Jamia Hamdard to issue CoA and invoking coercive measures under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC was set aside.
Cases relied on:
1. Brahmdeo Choudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & Anr., (1997) 3 SCC 694
2. Asgar Mohan Varma v. Moham Varma, (2020) 16 SCC 230
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Dr. Amit George, Dr. Swaroop George, Mr. Mobashshir Sarwar, Mr. Abhinandan Jain, Mr. Shivam Prajapati, Ms. Ibansara Syiemlieh, Mr. Abhigyan Dwivedi, Mr. Vaibhav Gandhi, Mr. Kartikey Puneesh and Mr. Takrim Ahsan Khan, Advocates with Mr. M.A. Sikandar, OSD, Mr. Syed Saud Akhtar, COE
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saket Sikri, Ms. Simran Mehta, Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Kullar, Mr. Prakhar Khanna, Mr. Priyansh Choudhary and Mr. M H Zahidi, Advocates for R-1 & 2. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shreyans Singhvi, Ms. Tanuja Singh, Ms. Ankita Singh and Ms. Madhu Yadav, Advocates for R-3 & 5.
Mr. Rajiv K. Virmani, Mr. Shubham Pandey and Mr. Naimesh Gupta, Advocates for R-4.
Mr. Parmanand Gaur, Standing Counsel for UGC along with Mr. Vibhav Mishra, Ms. Megha Gaur, and Ms. Renu Bhandari, Advocates for R-6/UGC.
Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr. Bhanu Gulati and Mr. Sourabh Kumar, Advocates for R-7.
