TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty was the property of the Judgment Debtor and had been attached in earlier execution petition against the Judgment Debtor also. 2. The objectors claim to be the owner of the property and have in support thereof filed before this Court photocopies of (i) the lease deed executed by the President of India with respect to the land underneath the said property in favour of Mr. Piyush Kanti Sen Gupta; (ii) the agreements to sell executed by the said Mr. Sen Gupta in favour of the objectors with respect to the said property; (iii) receipts executed by the said Mr. Sen Gupta of sale consideration with respect to the said property from the Objectors; and (iv) the order dated 10th October, 2001 of the MCD allowing mutation of the said property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. It is so stated in the reply of the Decree Holder to the objections also. However the said reply is not accompanied by the affidavit of any person on behalf of the Decree Holder present before the court on that date. In the absence of anything in the order recording that such statement was made before the court, no notice of the same can be taken. 6. As far as the plea of the Decree Holder of the said property being shown as the registered office of the Judgment Debtor company is concerned, the same in my opinion does not form a ground for the Decree Holder to attach the said property or to insist upon continuing the said attachment. Merely because the registered office of the Judgment Debtor company existed at the address of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion between Judgment Debtor and Objectors, who admittedly are closely related, appear attractive and equitable since the Decree Holder inspite of decree in its favour is still without its fruits, but I have wondered, so what? Unless it can be said that if it is established that the Objectors are in collusion with the Judgment Debtor, the decree against the Judgment Debtor can be executed against the property of the Objectors, no purpose will be served in putting the pleas of collusion to trial. Question has been put to the counsel for Decree Holder in this regard. No law/legal provision has been cited in this regard. 10. To my mind with respect to a company, the only provisions in this regard are contained in Section 531 of the Companies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. However there is not a whisper in this regard, neither in the execution petition, nor in the reply to the objections. On the contrary ex-parte order of attachment was obtained by representing the property to be of Judgment Debtor. Without a case for piercing corporate veil being pleaded, no roving trial can be ordered. 13. The counsel for the Decree Holder has next contended that the agreements to sell of the property in favour of the objectors are unregistered. The said agreements are of the year 1991. The counsel for the objectors has contended that the Judgment Debtor company came to be incorporated thereafter in the year 1993. Even otherwise prior to the amendment of the Registration Act with effect from September, 2001 qua Delhi, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt that the property belongs to the Judgment Debtor, it is stated that the Decree Holder itself being a company, no inquiries could be made. A company cannot escape responsibility for its actions by contending to be a juristic person. It thinks and acts through its board of directors. When a person, be it a company, approaches the court for an ex-parte order and on whose statement the courts acts, it is expected to be fair to the court and to the party against whom order is sought. In the present case it appears that the Decree Holder has not made any enquiry from the L DO or the MCD where the records of this property exist before averring that the property of which attachment was sought belonged to the Judgment Debtor. Such practice of obt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion for such redressal. Courts are meant for adjudication of bonafide conflicts and not for causing injury to the other by merely involving in litigation. 19. The privy council as far back as in Kissori Mohan Roy v. Harsukhdas ILR 17 Cal 436 held that no finding of malice or want of reasonable care is necessary in case where the property of a person who is not a party to the suit is wrongfully attached. The same view is taken in Bank of India v. Lakshimani Dass (2000) 3 SCC 640. Having found that the Decree Holder in the present case to have wrongfully obtained attachment of the property of the Objectors and persisted in the same, the Decree Holder has become liable. 20. The application/objections are allowed. Attachment earlier orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
