R. SAVITHRI NAIDU versus M/S THE COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2026] 3 S.C.R. 113 · Decided: 12-02-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PANKAJ MITHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 3 S.C.R. 113 : 2026 INSC 150
R. Savithri Naidu 
v. 
M/s The Cotton Corporation of India Limited  
and Another
(Civil Appeal No. 1602 of 2026)
12 February 2026
[Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale 
in favour of the Appellant was without notice; whether the sale 
in favour of the Appellant can be brought within the purview of 
pendente lite, given that the arbitral award is for the recovery of 
money; whether the Appellant is a transferee pendente lite/post 
arbitral award purchaser, and is barred by Or.XXI r.102, CPC from 
resisting the execution.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXI r.102 – Transferee 
pendente lite/post arbitral award purchaser barred by Or.XXI 
r.102 from resisting execution – A sale agreement was entered 
into between the first and second respondents for the sale 
of cotton bales – On account of a dispute in recovery of 
the sale price of cotton bales supplied, first respondent 
raised arbitral dispute for recovery of money – Arbitrator 
passed award in favour of first respondent – Challenged by 
Respondent No. 2-Company, dismissed in 2013 – In 2019, 
first respondent filed execution petition (EP) for executing 
the award – In the meantime, a tripartite agreement was 
entered into between ICICI Bank, Respondent No.2 (borrower 
of ICICI Bank which initiated recovery proceedings under 
SARFAESI Act for default of payment of the sums borrowed 
and attached the properties of Respondent No.2) and the 
Appellant-mother of the Company’s MD, resulting in a Sale 
Deed in 2015 executed by Respondent No.2 in favour of the 
Appellant for one of the EP Schedule Property – Executing 
court ordered the conditional attachment of EP Schedule 
* Author
114
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Property – Appellant claiming to be a third party sought 
removal of the attachment order stating that through the 
registered sale deed executed by Respondent No.2, she had 
become the absolute owner of the EP Schedule Property – 
Executing court dismissed the claim petition of the Appellant 
inter alia holding that the third-party claimant took the risk 
of the execution petition, and the objection is hit by r.102 
of Or.XXI; revision thereagainst was also dismissed by High 
Court:
Held: Impugned order upheld – The non-production of tripartite 
agreement, which is the genesis for discharging the claim of ICICI 
Bank, as has been rightly held by the Executing Court, shows that 
the sale in favour of Appellant, even if for consideration cannot be 
without notice of the existing liability of the Company/Respondent 
No. 2 – The recovery proceedings under SARFAESI Act are 
independent and does not give any shield of protection to other 
claims against the Judgment Debtor/Borrower in default – In the 
circumstances of the case, the argument that the sale in favour of 
the Appellant is without notice, rejected – Appellant is a purchaser 
post-arbitral award for recovery of the amount – The execution 
proceeding was pending when the sale deed was entered into 
between Respondent No. 2 and the Appellant – Appellant is a 
transferee pendente lite/post arbitral award purchaser, and is 
barred by Or.XXI r.102 from resisting the execution – Moreover, 
the Appellant failed to discharge the onus on the sale being without 
notice of the existing claim – The arbitral award remains unrealised 
till date – Therefore, in the circumstances of this case, and by 
following the ratio in Danesh, the claim petition of the Appellant 
was rightly dismissed by the courts below – If the argument 
of the appellant is accepted allowing pendente lite purchasers 
or third parties to bypass the strict procedural safeguards and 
institute separate suits or raise belated objections long after the 
execution processes (like attachment and sale) have advanced, 
it would completely derail the statutory machinery – Judgment-
debtors would be incentivized to systematically defeat decrees 
by transferring properties or planting surrogate objectors to 
initiate endless collateral litigation – Transfer of Property Act, 
1882 – s.52 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. [Paras 10, 
13, 13.1, 14]
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 
115
R. Savithri Naidu v.  
M/s The Cotton Corporation of India Limited and Another
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXI r.102 – On facts, Appellant 
is a transferee pendente lite/post arbitral award purchaser, and 
is barred by Or.XXI r.102 from r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.