TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the property ) was attached in compliance to the orders dated 16.5.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge. As would be noted hereafter, the disputed portion of the property changed hands from one person to other. After the attachment, Court had put the property to auction and at that stage, the respondent No.2 filed the objections stating that since he was the owner of the property and had nothing to do with the said decree, the property could not be sold in the execution. The learned Single Judge has accepted the objections of the respondent No.2 and allowed his objections vide orders dated 12.3.2008 imposing a cost of ₹ 50,000/- upon the appellant/decree holder. In this appeal, we are concerned with the validity and/or propriety of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty, which was in his occupation as a tenant. Other portions/flats in the said property are occupied by different persons and Mr.Khetrapal had no connection with those persons. Thus, at the time of execution of the warrants of attachment the Bailiff attached only the disputed portion of the property, which was in occupation of the Managing Director of the JD No.1, namely, Mr.Aushim Khetrapal. 4. After the service of notice in the execution petition and the execution of the warrants of attachment, Mr.Khetrapal appeared in the Court and gave assurances to the Court to the effect that he would liquidate the entire liability under the said decree by making payments in phased manner. Significantly, no objections were filed by him stating that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 23,88,565/- along with interest @ 15% per annum from 10.2.2000 till payment would become due and payable. In para 9 of the application, following stipulation was made:- 9. That the judgment debtor further agrees and admits that till the entire payment in terms of the settlement above is pad to the decree holder he shall not sell, alienate, transfer or part with possession of the premises bearing No.S-524, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi and till payment of the last installment upto 10/10/02. 6. In his supporting affidavit Mr.Khetrapal, in addition to stating that he was the Managing Director of the judgment debtor, specifically affirmed on oath as under:- 3. That I shall remain bound by the terms as stated in the accomp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d this property to one Mr.Rahul Mullick vide sale deed dated 1.1.2002 and the respondent No.2 purchased the property in question from Mr.Rahul Mullick vide sale deed dated 19.12.2003. On this basis the learned Single Judge opined that the respondent No.2 was the bona fide purchaser of the property. It is also held by the learned Single Judge that since the decree is against the respondent No.1, which is a private limited company and thus, a distinct entity, there could not have been an attachment of the property, which was sold to Mr.Aushim Khetrapal and his wife Mrs.Anita Khetrapal on 4.1.2001. The learned Single Judge also held that in the facts of this case the doctrine of lifting of corporate veil would not apply. On this premise t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount payable under the decree was more than ₹ 23 lakhs, the decree holder agreed to settle the case by accepting only ₹ 11 lakhs. d) Furthermore, another aspect which becomes significant and rather a clincher is that at the time of entering into settlement he assured the decree holder as well as the Court in his application dated 27.9.2002 the following two things:- (i) till the entire payment in terms of the settlement is paid to the decree holder, he shall not sell, alienate, transfer or part with possession of the suit property (which was lying under attachment); (ii) he agreed, in no uncertain terms, that in case of default he shall also be personally liable to satisfy the decree. e) It is clear that the decre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particularly when Mr.Khetrapal had agreed that he would be personally liable to satisfy the decree, it is not even necessary to dwell into this issue whether in the facts of this case the corporate veil could be lifted. Still, we may hasten to add that it is not in dispute that the judgment debtor is a private limited company of which Mr.Aushim Khetrapal is the Managing Director. It appears to be a closely held company and it would even be possible to state that it is in the nature of quasi partnership , more particularly when we observe the manner in which Mr.Khetrapal acted and did not react to the attachment of the property. However, in the absence of exact shareholding or the extent of shareholding of Mr.Khetrapal or other members of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
