EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 1 of 22

$~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

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 2 of 22

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

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 3 of 22

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

SPONSORING BODY

HAMDARD NATIONAL

FOUNDATION

SUB-COMMITTEES

AND SOCIETIES

HNF (MREC)

&

Hamdard Education Society

HNF (HECA)

ALLIED

INSTITUTIONS

HIMSR and its

Associate Hospital

Jamia Hamdard

(deemed to be

University)

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 4 of 22

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,

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 5 of 22

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 t o 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,

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 6 of 22

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

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 7 of 22

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

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 8 of 22

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.

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 9 of 22

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 2023

1

, 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

1

Regulations 26, 13, 17B, 24B, 31, 34.

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 10 of 22

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

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 11 of 22

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

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 12 of 22

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

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 13 of 22

“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,

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 14 of 22

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:

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 15 of 22

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 16 of 22

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 17 of 22

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 18 of 22

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 19 of 22

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 20 of 22

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.

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 21 of 22

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.

EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025 in O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Page 22 of 22

55. Pending application is allowed and disposed of.

JASMEET SINGH, J

DECEMBER 08, 2025/DE