As per case facts, the Decree Holder initiated an execution petition to enforce an arbitral award, later made a Rule of Court and affirmed on appeal. The Judgment Debtor was ... declared a sick industrial company, and a rehabilitation scheme was sanctioned by the BIFR. The Decree Holder's initial execution was dismissed due to a statutory bar. The Decree Holder approached BIFR and AAIFR, seeking recovery of principal and interest, but the interest claim was rejected by both authorities. The present execution petition was filed after the SICA protection expired, with the principal released. The question arose whether the Decree Holder was entitled to execute the decree for the interest component, notwithstanding the SICA regime and the binding effect of the sanctioned rehabilitation scheme, especially after BIFR and AAIFR rejected the interest claim. Finally, the High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the sanctioned rehabilitation scheme binds all creditors. The interest component, expressly excluded and adjudicated under the scheme, is extinguished and cannot be claimed or enforced. The court emphasized the 'fresh slate' doctrine, where claims not recognized in an approved plan cannot be revived.