Bombay High Court
Parasram H Bhojwani vs Pravinchand Sehgal And 2 Ors And Rem ... on 25 January, 2024
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
3-GRN(L) 34280.2022 in IA(L) 5297.2022.doc
Kavita S.J.
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
Ganapati Enterprises ...Respondent(Garnishee)
----------
S.C. Naidu a/w Mr. Sudesh Naidu, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Mr. Abhishek
Ingale i/b C.R. Naidu & Co., Advocates for Applicant/Judgment
Creditor.
Mr. Anuj Desai a/w Mr. Yash Gawade, Advocates for Respondent.
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J.
DATED : 25TH JANUARY, 2024.
ORDER :
KAVITA
SUSHIL 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the Judgment Debtor
JADHAV
No.1 states that the Garnishee, against whom the Notice had been
3-GRN(L) 34280.2022 in IA(L) 5297.2022.doc
issued viz. Ganapati Enterprises is a Proprietary Firm of Pravinchand
Sehgal, H.U.F. He has submitted that when the order dated 28 th
February, 2023 was passed directing the Garnishee to deposit the sum
of Rs.54,28,691.54 within a period of four weeks and the Garnishee
Notice disposed of, it was not brought to the notice of this Court that
there was no debt due by the Garnishee-Ganapati Enterprises to
Judgment Debtor No.1 Pravinchand Sehgal. He has submitted that
Pravinchand Sehgal, H.U.F. and not Pravinchand Sehgal in his
individual capacity is the Proprietor of Ganapati Enterprises. He has
further submitted that an Application is being taken out by the Karta
of Pravinchand Sehgal, H.U.F. and which would be filed in the course
of the day. He has accordingly sought time on that account.
2. Mr. Naidu, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant/Judgment Creditor has referred to the order dated 14 th
October, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, by
which it was recorded that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 18 which
includes Ganapati Enterprises as Respondent No.15 owes a debt to
Ganapati Enterprises, a Sole Proprietorship of Pravinchand Sehgal,
H.U.F.. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge of this Court had issued
Show Cause Notice under Order XXI Rule 46-A of the Code of Civil
3-GRN(L) 34280.2022 in IA(L) 5297.2022.doc
Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") calling upon the Respondents to show cause
why they ought not to pay into the Court the mentioned amounts
before the returnable date, by filing an Affidavit, failing which the
Respondents ought to appear before this Court. It was further
recorded that in default, an order for payment of the aforesaid
amounts will be passed against the Respondents.
3. Mr. Naidu has thereafter referred to the order dated 10 th
July, 2023 passed by the Supreme Court, by which an SLP filed by
Gorkap Properties Investments Private Limited challenging the said
order dated 14th October, 2022 had been dismissed. He has
submitted that the said order dated 14 th October, 2022 has attained
finality. He has referred to the order dated 28 th February, 2023 by
which this Court had in default of responding to the Garnishee Notice
and none appearing for the Garnishee-Ganapati Enterprises, directed
the Garnishee to deposit the sum of Rs.54,28,691.54 within a period
of four weeks from the date of the said order and accordingly, the
Garnishee Notice was disposed of.
4. Mr. Naidu has accordingly submitted that the non-
compliance of the order dated 28th February, 2023 by the Garnishee is
3-GRN(L) 34280.2022 in IA(L) 5297.2022.doc
required to be taken note of. Further, Ganapati Enterprises is
required to be directed to deposit the said amount of Rs.54,28,691.54
in this Court prior to considering any Application being filed by the
Karta of Pravinchand Sehgal, H.U.F. claiming to be the Proprietor of
Ganapati Enterprises.
5. Having considered the submissions, it is necessary to note
that the Judgment Debtor No.1 had in Disclosure Affidavit stated that
Respondent Nos. 1 to 18 including Ganapati Enterprises-Respondent
No.15 owe a debt to Ganapati Enterprises, a Sole Proprietory concern
of Pravinchand Sehgal, H.U.F.. The learned Single Judge had inspite
of recording the same, issued a Notice under Order XXI Rule 46-A of
the CPC to the Respondents. This resulted in order dated 28 th
February, 2023 directing the Garnishee-Ganapati Enterprises to
deposit the aforementioned amount in Court. The Garnishee-
Ganapati Enterprises has failed to comply with the said order dated
28th February, 2023.
6. A frivolous Application had been taken out by Mrs. Veena
Sehgal, wife of Judgment Debtor No.1 to recall the order dated 28 th
February, 2023 which was thereafter withdrawn. This was upon this
3-GRN(L) 34280.2022 in IA(L) 5297.2022.doc
Court observing that Mrs. Veena Sehgal does not have any locus to
file the Application being a co-parcener of the Pravinchand Sehgal,
H.U.F. In view thereof, the Application was withdrawn on 12 th
January, 2024.
7. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to put the Garnishee-
Ganapati Enterprises to terms prior to considering any Application
being filed by the Karta of Pravinchand Sehgal, H.U.F.
8. The Garnishee-Ganapati Enterprises shall deposit the sum
of Rs.54,28,691.54 within a period of two weeks from the date of this
order.
9. In the event, the Application is filed by Pravinchand Sehgal,
H.U.F., the same shall be placed alongwith the rest of the matters on
20th February, 2024.
[R.I. CHAGLA, J.]
