$~J * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 26.11.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 08 .12.2025 + O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 ASAD MUEED & ANR. .....Decree Holders Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saket Sikri, Ms. Simran Mehta, Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, Mr. Prakhar khanna , Mr. Priyansh Choudhary Mr. M H Zahidi, Advocates versus HAMMAD AHMED & ORS. .....Judgement Debtors Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Virmani, Mr. Shubham Pandey, Mr. Naimesh Gupta, Advs. for JD2 Dr Amit George, Dr.Swaroop George, Mr. Mobashshir Sarwar, Mr. Abhinanadnan Jain, Mr. Shivam Prajapati, Ms. Ibansara Syiemlieh, Ms. Adhishwar Suri, Mr. Abhigayan Dwivedi, Mr. Kartikey Puneesh, Mr. Kartikey Mr. Takrim Ashan Khan, Advs. for JD4 Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Mr. Yamini Singh, Mr. Sourabh Kumar, Mr. Vedant Sood, Advs. for NMC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH JUDGEMENT 1. Vide order dated 26.09.2025, this Court had deleted Judgment Debtor Nos. 1-3 as the order dated 12.08.2025, which the decree holders are seeking to enforce, has attained finality only with respect to Judgment Debtor No. 4 i.e., JHDU. Therefore it is clarified that the observations below are with respect to JHDU and HIMSR only, and not with respect to any other institutions functioning under JHDU. EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 2. This is an application filed by the Decree Holders under Application Order XXI, Rule 32 read with Section 51 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking the following direction: “pass directions to compel the Judgment Debtor to comply with the order dated 12.08.2025 and directions passed by this Hon’ble executing court vide order dated 10.10.2025, including but not limited to directing arrest, detention in civil prison and/or attachment of property, of all members of the Executive Council (previously Board of Management) and Registrar of the judgment debtor as mentioned in paragraph 8.2 and Annexure A-8 of the present application; AND/OR...” FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3. The present proceedings arise from a long-standing dispute between two groups of the Hamdard family regarding the administrative control of Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research (‘HIMSR’), which, under the Family Settlement Deed (‘FSD’) dated 22.10.2019 and its Amended FSD dated 21.02.2020, was placed under the control of the Medical Relief & Education Committee (‘MREC’) of the Hamdard National Foundation (‘HNF’), represented by the Decree Holders. The below mentioned chart shows the distribution as per the FSD. 4. As per Clause 25 of the FSD, the assets and liabilities of HNF were to be managed by 2 independent committees namely Hamdard Education and Cultural Aid Committee (“HECA”) and MREC. As per Clause 26 of the FSD, HECA was to be under the control of the judgement debtors and MREC was to be under the control of the decree holders. As per Clause 27 of the FSD, both HECA and MREC, were to function independently and not interfere with each others working in any manner. 5. A methodology was put in place to ensure smooth implementation of the FSD, under which the other signatories assumed control of the Jamia Hamdard (Deemed to be University) (“JHDU”) while the decree holders were entrusted with complete administrative, academic, and financial control of HIMSR. Accordingly, the highest executive body of the JHDU passed a resolution dated 03.07.2021 formally adopting the FSD and operationalising this arrangement. 6. Disputes arose regarding the functioning of HIMSR, alleging that certain signatories, along with the JHDU, sought to usurp control of the institution in violation of the FSD. 7. The Court, by its detailed judgment dated 20.09.2022, referred the said disputes to the learned Arbitrator and directed the parties to maintain the existing status of HIMSR as a constituent institution of the JHDU. The JHDU also furnished an undertaking to state that all the documents required to enable HIMSR to establish itself independently will be issued, consistent with UGC regulations. It was also stated that the JHDU will continue to cooperate with the decree holders and not take any steps which are inconsistent with the FSD. 8. Subsequently, in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) this Court, by order dated 14.02.2023, held that even non-signatories to the arbitration Agreement would be bound by interim orders issued by the learned Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act. 9. Thereafter, the learned Arbitrator, by an order dated 02.03.2023, directed the parties to maintain status quo as on 20.09.2022, which included maintaining HIMSR’s academic status, all of which are the subject matter of the present enforcement proceedings. 10. However, the opposite group, controlling JHDU through HNF- HECA, wrote 2 letters dated 06.06.2025 and 11.07.2025 confirming withdrawal of CoA which led to withdrawal of seats, by the National Medical Commission (“NMC”) on 23.07.2025. 11. On 12.08.2025, the learned Arbitrator passed an order under Section 17 of the Act directing JHDU to extend full support to the Decree Holders and HIMSR for inclusion of the 150 MBBS seats in the 2025-26 counselling process, which attained finality after dismissal of the Section 37 appeal on 16.09.2025. 12. This Court, in execution proceedings on 10.10.2025, further directed JHDU to issue all necessary documents, including any necessary consent letters. 13. The order dated 10.10.2025 was challenged before the Division Bench in EFA(OS) 17/2025, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench on 14.11.2025 modified para 7 of the impugned order and held as under: “4. After arguing at length, learned counsel representing the parties have arrived at a consensus. 5. It has been agreed that the Paragraph No.7 of the Impugned Order passed by the learned Single Judge (Executing Court) shall be substituted with Paragraph No.13 of the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in ARB.A.3/2025 & I.A. 20074/2025 captioned Jamia Hamdard Deemed to be University vs. AsadMueed&Ors, which reads as under: “13. A reading of the aforesaid paragraphs reveals that the Arbitral Tribunal has given a direction to the respondents in the arbitration and the appellant, to extend support to the claimants and HIMSR in their attempt to secure 150 MBBS seats for the academic year 2025- 26. However, the Arbitrator clarifies that the support has to be within the confines of the law. The impugned order further directs that the appellant should not create “purported legal hurdles” so as to deny the 150 MBBS seats to HIMSR for the academic year 2025-26. This would necessarily imply that if the claimants and HIMSR are not acting within the confines of law, the appellant need not support them.” 6. Consequently, Paragraph No.7 of the Impugned Order shall stand deleted and, in its place, Paragraph No.13 of order dated 16.09.2025 shall be incorporated as Paragraph No.7 in the Impugned Order.” 14. Mr. Nayar, learned senior counsel for the decree holders, states that despite issuance of the NMC-prescribed format and a detailed requisition letter dated 16.10.2025, the Vice Chancellor, Registrar, and members of the Executive Council withheld the required Consent of Affiliation (“CoA”), even as the NMC counselling process was scheduled to conclude on 20.11.2025. 15. According to him, JHDU’s conduct amounts to intentional and wilful disobedience of both the Arbitrator’s directions and this Court’s orders. Such actions, have frustrated the restoration of the 150 MBBS seats as well as the rights of eligible students. It is further stated that the situation created by the judgment debtors in the execution proceedings is a purported legal hurdle precisely the kind of obstacle that the learned Arbitrator, in paragraph 35 of its order dated 12.08.2025, expressly directed the parties to avoid. 16. The relevant findings of the learned Arbitrator’s order 12.08.2025 read as under: “Accordingly, it is directed that the Respondents and Jamia Hamdard shall extend all support to the Claimants and HIMSR in their attempts before the appropriate forum/fora to be included in the counselling and admission process of the MBBS (150 seats) course for the academic year 2015-26. Of course, such support by the Respondents and Jamia Hamdard has to be within the confines of law. At the same time, the Respondents and Jamia Hamdard should be careful not to set up a purported legal hurdle, when none exists, so as to deny HIMSR the said 150 MBBS seats. Jamia Hamdard, though yet not a party to the present arbitration, is bound by its assurance and commitment given to the Hon’ble High Court that it will “facilitate the implementation of the directions given by the learned arbitrator”.” 17. Mr. Nayar, learned senior counsel further contends that the CoA which is being sought in the present case, required under the NMC Regulations is wholly distinct from affiliation under the University Grants Commission (“UGC”) Regulations. 18. Under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and the Establishment of Medical Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023, every proposal for establishing or continuing a medical college must be accompanied by an Essentiality Certificate and a CoA which is merely a written assurance from a recognized university agreeing to award degrees to students of the medical institution. 19. HIMSR was approved in 2011 by the then MCI (now NMC), and JHDU has since inception issued CoAs strictly to comply with NMC norms, including the letter dated 25.08.2011, much prior to any family settlement. 20. Such CoA does not confer affiliation under UGC Regulations and cannot be treated as such. NMC and UGC operate in separate statutory spheres: while NMC exclusively regulates medical education, UGC has no role in MBBS/MD admissions or standards. Therefore, issuance of a CoA to meet NMC requirements does not violate any UGC norms and is unrelated to the decree sought to be enforced in these proceedings. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE JUDGEMENT DEBTOR 21. Per Contra, Mr. Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel and Dr. George, learned Counsel for JHDU submit that the learned Arbitrator’s order pertains to MBBS admissions, which is a matter affecting the public at large and therefore involves rights in rem. Such matters are non-arbitrable and fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of statutory authorities such as the UGC and NMC, as well as constitutional courts. It is further submitted that the learned Arbitrator proceeded to pass directions despite writ proceedings on the same subject already pending. 22. Learned Counsels further contends that HIMSR is not an independent legal entity. Under the UGC Regulations, a deemed-to-be university is a unitary and non-affiliating institution, and all its constituent units including HIMSR form an inseparable part of JHDU. Treating HIMSR as an independent entity capable of admitting 150 MBBS seats separately would violate the UGC framework. 23. It is additionally argued that the issue regarding the legality and status of HIMSR is presently sub judice before the Writ Court, and that, in view of the modified directions issued by the Division Bench, cooperation by JHDU was required only if HIMSR was acting within the confines of law. Since the actions sought are allegedly contrary to UGC Regulations 20231, it is submitted that no cooperation or support is required from JHDU. 24. It is further argued that on 07.11.2022, the UGC forwarded the expert committee report which clearly mentioned that HIMSR could not function independently and also withheld the amount of 8 crores. Further, it is stated that UGC Regulations are geared towards unitary entities and bar affiliation by deemed to be universities as per Regulation 26. Even the Comptroller and Auditor General also noted illegal functioning of HIMSR, in light of this it has been argued that granting affiliation would be contrary to UGC Regulations which may lead to removal of Deemed University status, thereby affecting more than 11000 students. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE UGC 25. Mr. Gaur, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the UGC which was impleaded as Respondent No. 5 vide order dated 18.11.2025 states that JHDU was duly informed that all Deemed to be Universities must function strictly in accordance with the UGC guidelines and regulations and the applicable Regulations of 2010, 2016, 2019, and now 2023. 26. All these regulations uniformly mandate that a deemed university must remain unitary in nature and cannot affiliate any institution. The 2019 Regulations further strengthened these restrictions by expressly prohibiting the addition of any constituent institutions and laying down detailed consequences for violations. 27. Despite these clear regulatory prohibitions, JHDU repeatedly submitted MoAs in 2021 showing HIMSR as its “constituent institution” and Hamdard National Foundation as its sponsoring body. The UGC clarified multiple times (letters dated 17.12.2021 and 17.01.2022) that no such notification had ever been issued and directed JHDU to restructure its MoA by showing HIMSR only as a school/centre of the university, not a constituent institution. However, the revised submissions continued to depict HIMSR as a constituent institution. 28. Mr. Gaur states that under the 2023 Regulations as well, JHDU cannot lawfully treat HIMSR as its constituent unit or grant it any form of affiliation. Any such misrepresentation constitutes a violation attracting penalties under Regulation 34, which include warnings, restrictions on expansion, bar on admissions, closure of programmes, and even withdrawal of deemed university status. If such withdrawal becomes necessary, the UGC clarifies that it will protect the interests of current students by allowing them to complete their courses and obtain degrees. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE NMC 29. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court on 18.11.2025, the NMC, a statutory body constituted under the NMC Act, 2019, has placed its position on record. 30. Mr. Singhdev, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NMC states that the Commission functions through four Autonomous Boards, including the Medical Assessment & Rating Board (‘MARB’), which is responsible for permissions relating to establishment of medical colleges, commencement of courses, and increase of seats. 31. Section 28 of the NMC Act, 2019 mandates that no medical college may be established, nor seats increased, without prior permission of MARB, which must be sought through a statutory application accompanied by all documents required under the 2023 Regulations. Regulation 9(b) further mandates that a valid CoA issued by a recognised university is an essential pre-condition for consideration of any such application. 32. The Decree Holders’ Medical College, HIMSR, had relied upon multiple CoAs issued by the JHDU since inception, all of which had been submitted to the NMC for grant and renewal of permissions. However, vide letter dated 22.07.2025, JHDU informed NMC that these CoAs had been withdrawn for the academic year 2025-26. 33. Acting solely on this communication, the Undergraduate Medical Education Board, vide order dated 23.07.2025, declined renewal of permission for 150 MBBS seats for 2025-26. A further clarification dated 24.07.2025 recorded that the decision was confined to the said academic year and that admissions already made would remain unaffected. A similar position was adopted for postgraduate seats, as reflected in the Notice dated 30.10.2025 and the order of the Division Bench dated 31.10.2025 in LPA 658/2025. 34. It is further stated that NEET-UG counselling for the current academic session has already concluded on 20.11.2025, and NEET-PG counselling is underway, scheduled to conclude on 31.01.2026. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 35. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that this Court in the present petition is required to ensure execution of the order 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Arbitrator. 36. The present application, therefore, requires this Court to determine whether JHDU’s act of withdrawing, and thereafter declining to re-issue, the CoA to the Decree Holders is hit by para 35 of the order dated 12.08.2025. Further, whether such conduct amounts to creating a “purported legal hurdle,” which the learned Arbitrator expressly prohibited JHDU from raising. 37. It is well-settled that an executing court cannot go behind the decree, re-examine its correctness, or reopen issues that have attained finality. The direction of the Court and the learned Arbitrator under Section 9, Section 17, the dismissal of the Section 37 challenge, and the order dated 10.10.2025 (as modified) bind the parties and must be enforced in its entirety. The only interpretive space available arises from the modification introduced by the Division Bench, which clarifies that the judgment debtors are required to extend cooperation to the Decree Holders “within the confines of law” while refraining from raising “purported legal hurdles.” 38. The main contention of the JHDU is that issuance of the CoA would contravene the UGC Regulations because a Deemed University is non-affiliating and unitary in structure. Reliance is placed on Regulation 26 of UGC Regulations 2023 which reads as under: “26. Institution deemed to be University to be unitary.— The institution deemed to be University shall be unitary in nature and shall not affiliate any other institution.” 39. It is argued that HIMSR is an inseparable constituent unit of JHDU and cannot be treated as an institution that may independently receive affiliation. To my mind, this submission, however, fails to appreciate the distinction between affiliation under the UGC Act and CoA as envisaged under the NMC Act, 2019. 40. The two Acts serve different statutory purposes and operate in distinct fields. UGC “affiliation” is related to recognition of a college by the association of such a college with the University, while the NMC “CoA” is merely an assurance required for grant of approval of medical seats and degrees and would not confer the status of an affiliated institution. 41. In my view, the consent of affiliation mandated by the NMC serves a specific purpose: it ensures that the degree awarded by the university aligns with recognised medical education standards. The UGC framework does not regulate the intake of MBBS seats, and therefore, no statutory conflict arises between the issuance of a CoA by NMC and the provisions of the UGC Act. 42. I am further of the opinion that Regulation 26 of the UGC Regulations, 2023 is confined to the process of granting affiliation to a university and does not extend to the issuance of a CoA by the NMC for the establishment or operation of a medical college. The UGC Act and the NMC Act, 2019 operate in distinct spheres, each with its own purpose and regulatory scope, and there is no overlap between them. 43. The historical conduct of the JHDU further undermines its present argument. For more than a decade, JHDU has issued the very same CoA without objection. Neither the UGC nor any other authority questioned this practice. The NMC itself, through its Standing Counsel, has confirmed before this Court that several Deemed Universities across the country operate medical colleges in this manner. JHDU is therefore incorrect in asserting that such an arrangement is contrary to UGC Regulations. Nothing in law prevented the JHDU from issuing the CoA. 44. Dealing with the second issue which is whether withdrawal of consent by the JHDU vide its letter dated 11.07.2025 was within the confines of law, the factual background indicates that several binding orders governed the parties’ conduct prior to the withdrawal which had directed that status quo with respect to the FSD. Further, the CoA that had been consistently issued since 2011 and was part of the existing arrangement and the JHDU’s had unilaterally departed from that arrangement. 45. The letters which have been written by JHDU on 06.06.2025,11.07.2025 and 22.07.2025 seeking withdrawal of seats read as under: 46. A perusal of paragraphs 2 to 4 of the letter dated 11.07.2025 makes it abundantly clear that the JHDU had communicated to the NMC the withdrawal of previously issued CoA letters for the academic year 2025 - 26. This communication formed the sole basis on which the NMC declined to grant renewal of permission to the Decree Holders. 47. Learned counsels for JHDU, Mr. Jain and Mr. George, sought to justify the timing of this withdrawal on the ground that the JHDU had been consistently corresponding with the NMC regarding alleged irregularities and had even filed W.P.(C) 6511/2025, which is pending adjudication. They contend that the withdrawal of consent must be viewed in the context of these communications and the pendency of the said writ petition. 48. I am unable to accept this justification. JHDU was fully aware of the subsisting obligations flowing from the letter dated 07.11.2022, as well as the orders of this Court and the directions of the learned Arbitrator. In these circumstances, there was no legally tenable basis for the JHDU to unilaterally withdraw the CoA. The pendency of a writ petition or prior correspondence with the NMC cannot override or dilute binding directions of the Court and the learned Arbitrator. 49. JHDU issued the impugned letter only on 06.06.2025, 11.07.2025 and 22.07.2025 almost three years after the letter dated 07.11.2022 of UGC. The manner of the withdrawal demonstrates that it was not driven by any statutory compulsion. JHDU did not raise any concern relating to UGC Regulations in its correspondence preceding the withdrawal. It continued to grant admission for MBBS/MD seats for the years 2023- 2025. 50. If the contention urged by JHDU is taken to be correct that JHDU could not have issued CoA to HIMSR as per UGC regulations then there was no reason for JHDU to issue the CoA for the academic years starting from 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26 and then abruptly withdrawing for 2025-26. To my mind the same shows that the intent behind withdrawal was to frustrate the arbitral process and the ongoing admissions cycle, rather than any legal compulsion. 51. The NMC’s refusal to renew the 150 MBBS seats for the academic year 2025-26 was based solely on the withdrawal of consent by the JHDU which is in the nature of a legal hurdle, and it cannot take advantage of its own wrongful act. The effect of such a withdrawal has the effect of undermining the order of the learned Arbitrator and defeating the rights of students, despite the learned Arbitrator’s directions having attained finality and, in my view, the defence now advanced is an afterthought. 52. The learned Arbitrator, in paragraph 35 of its order dated 12.08.2025, had already cautioned that the Judgment Debtors must not create a “purported legal hurdle” so as to deny the inclusion of the 150 MBBS seats in the counselling process. CONCLUSION 53. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the withdrawal of CoA by JHDU was not within the confines of law. 54. In view of the above, JHDU shall comply and issue necessary CoA to the decree holders within 7 days of this order, failing which the decree holders will have the liberty to revive the instant application. 55. Pending application is allowed and disposed of. JASMEET SINGH, J DECEMBER 08, 2025/DE 1Regulations 26, 13, 17B, 24B, 31, 34. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 21 of 22