SANJEEV CHANANA vs J. S. VOHRA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 10th July, 2025 CM(M) 1019/2021& CM APPL. 40459/2021 SANJEEV CHANANA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Upadhayay, Advocate. versus J. S. VOHRA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Renu Verma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Learned counsel for respondent/decree holder submits that she does not want to delay her execution petition. She submits that in order to realize the decretal amount, the execution petition was filed before the learned Executing Court. 2. She admits that decree was directed against the company only and, to ascertain the assets of the JD company, the process was issued to the petitioner who is Director of JD company. 3. Since the directions given by the learned Executing Court were not appropriately adhered to by the petitioner, the learned Executing Court was compelled to issue coercive process against him. 4. She submits that she would have no objection if the non-bailable warrants are recalled with condition that he would appear before the learned Executing Court and would file affidavit in terms of the directions given by 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits