Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 21 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant – SEPC Limited (formerly Shriram EPC Limited); Respondents – GPE (INDIA) Ltd., GPE (JVI) Ltd., Gaja Trustee Company Private Limited, Twarit Consultancy Services Private Limited, and a consortium of banks including Axis Bank Limited, Indian Bank, Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Central Bank of India, South India Bank, Indusland Bank, ICICI Bank, Bank of Maharashtra, IDBI Bank Ltd., State Bank of India, Union Bank of India.
  • Reference: Application A.No.1812 of 2026 in Execution Petition No.91 of 2023 seeking modification of the order dated 19 February 2026.
  • Background: An arbitral award dated 7 January 2021 (affirmed by Singapore International Commercial Court on 24 December 2021) directed payment of Rs.154,63,23,499 to the award holder. The Madras High Court, on 19 February 2026, ordered interim attachment of trade receivables of the second respondent amounting to Rs.154,63,23,499 out of total receivables Rs.499,62,35,793 and directed the first judgment debtor to deposit Rs.7.50 crore per quarter and Rs.2.50 crore as a fixed deposit.
  • Subsequent Directions: On 16 April 2026, the court required an affidavit disclosing source of funds; on 30 April 2026, the consortium banks were permitted to appropriate up to Rs.15.69 crore from trust accounts and Rs.2 crore for salary. An affidavit filed on 19 June 2026 remained vague, merely stating ongoing negotiations for loan facilities.
  • Audit: An independent audit agency, PricewaterhouseCoopers, filed its report on 22 April 2026, which was made available to the parties.
  • Payments Made: By the time of the present application, the judgment debtors had paid Rs.120 crore, but no further source‑of‑funds affidavits were produced for the quarterly Rs.7.50 crore installments.
  • Contentions: The applicant argued that continued attachment would render the company a non‑performing asset and sought recall of the attachment. The decree holders contended the application was an attempt to evade the award, citing collusion between the first and second judgment debtors.

Final Outcome

  • The Court dismissed the application to modify the 19 February 2026 order, finding the debtors' conduct not bonafide and noting the lack of disclosed source of funds.
  • No order as to costs was made; each party bears its own expenses.

Topics: Arbitration Award Enforcement, Trade Receivable Attachment