Bombay High Court
Parasram H Bhojwani vs Pravinchand Sehgal And 2 Ors And ... on 28 February, 2023
Bench: R. I. Chagla
32-GRN(L) 34280.2022 in IA(L) 5297.2022.doc
K.S. Jadhav
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
GARNISHEE NOTICE (L) NO.34280 OF 2022
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.5297 OF 2022
Parasram H. Bhojwani ... Applicant
In the matter between
Parasram H. Bhojwani ... Judgment Creditor
(Original Plaintiff)
Versus
Pravinchand Sehgal & Ors., ...Judgment Debtors
(Original Defendants)
And
Rem Enterprise & Ors., ...Respondents
----------
S.C. Naidu a/w Mr. Aniketh Poojari a/w Ms. Divya Yajurvedi a/w Mr.
Sudeshkumar Naidu a/w Mr. Pradeep Kumar i/b C.R. Naidu & Co.,
Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. Yashashree Munde i/b Parinam Law Associates, Advocate for
Judgment Debtor No.1 & 3.
Mr. Aniket Worlikar i/b Sujit Lahoti & Associates, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 6 to 9.
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J.
DATE : 28TH FEBRUARY, 2023.
ORDER :
1. The Interim Application (L) No.5297 of 2022 in which the
Garnishee Notice has been filed, had came up before this Court on
32-GRN(L) 34280.2022 in IA(L) 5297.2022.doc
14th October, 2022, when this Court had noted that in the additional
Affidavit affirmed by Judgment Debtor No.1 on 5 th February, 2022,
the Judgment Debtor No.1 had disclosed that Respondent No.1 to 18
owes a debt to M/s Ganpati Enterprises, a Sole Proprietorship of
Pravinchand Sehgal HUF, for the sums more specifically set out at
pages 259, 266 and 267 of the said additional Affidavit. Accordingly,
this Court had directed, Garnishee Notice be issued to the
Respondent Nos. 1 to 18 to show cause, why the amounts set out
hereinafter against their respective names should not be deposited in
Court together with costs.
2. Pursuant to the said order dated 14th October, 2022, the Bailiff
and Clerk of the Sheriff's Office had served the Garnishee Notice (L)
No.34280 of 2022 on 3 rd November, 2022 upon Judgment Debtor
No.1 who had accepted service for himself and on behalf of Ganapati
Enterprises (Respondent No.15) who is mentioned in 5(o) of the said
order dated 14th October, 2022. The Judgment Debtor No.1 had
signed the acknowledgment on the original Garnishee Notice. The
Bailiff's Report dated 4th November, 2022 is appended to the copy of
Garnishee Notice.
3. The Respondent No.15 Ganapati Enterprises inspite of service
32-GRN(L) 34280.2022 in IA(L) 5297.2022.doc
of Garnishee Notice, has neither responded to the Garnishee Notice
not made an appearance before this Court today.
4. Considering that Judgment Debtor No.1 has disclosed that
Respondent Nos. 1 to 18 owe a debt to M/s Ganpati Enterprises who
is stated to be the Sole Proprietorship of Pravinchand Sehgal,
Judgment Debtor No.1. The Respondent No.15 owe a sum of
Rs.54,28,691.54, it would be appropriate to direct the Respondent
No.15-Garnishee, by keeping the contention of the Judgment Debtor
No.1 that M/s Ganpati Enterprises is not the Sole Proprietory
Concern of Pravinchand Sehgal, HUF as Judgment Debtor No.1 has
only 1/3rd share open, to deposit the sum of Rs.54,28,691.54 in this
Court under Order XXI Rule 46A of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908.
5. The Respondent No.15-Garnishee shall make deposit of
Rs.54,28,691.54 within a period of four weeks from the date of this
order to the credit of Commercial Execution Application No.565 of 2019
with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court.
6. Accordingly, Garnishee Notice (L) No.34280 of 2022 is disposed
of.
[R.I. CHAGLA J.]
