Delhi High Court
Mithals International Moving And ... vs Sh.A.S.Sandhu & Anr. on 17 August, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
A-37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 17.8.2011
+ Ex.F.A. No.14-15/2006 & CM No.5612/2006 and
CM No.6002/2007
MITHALS INTERNATIONAL MOVING AND STORAGE (P) LTD.& ANR. ...........Appellants
Through: Mr.Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Badar Mahmood,, Advocate.
Versus
SH.A.S.SANDHU & ANR. ..........Respondents
Through: Mr.Vinay Kumar Garg, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr.A.K.Singla, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Ajay Digpal, Advocate for respondent no.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 15.4.2006 vide which the application under Order 21 Rule 57 and 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") filed by the objector Mithals International Relocation (P) Ltd. and Mithals International Moving and Storage (P) Ltd. had been dismissed.
2. It is not in dispute that the suit of the plaintiff had been decreed on 22.5.2001 for a sum of Rs.7,84,000/- along with interest; this decree had been obtained pursuant to the suit having been filed by the decree holder seeking enforcement of a decree dated 04.1.1994 passed by the Superior Court of California (USA). The decree dated 22.5.2001 had been passed against Mithals International (P) Ltd. Pursuant to the decree in the execution proceeding two trucks were attached which were in the name of Mithals International Relocation (P) Ltd and Mithals International Moving and Storage (P) Ltd.. The owners of the aforenoted two companies i.e. Mithals International Relocation (P) Ltd. and Mithals International Moving and Storage (P) Ltd. had thereafter moved an application under Order 21 Rule 57 and 58 of the Code seeking de-attachment of these trucks on the ground that the decree was passed against the Mithals International (Pvt.) Ltd. and the aforenoted two companies are distinct and separate entities. To support his submission learned counsel for the petitioner had also filed the certificates of incorporation of the aforenoted two companies dated 04.12.1996, 17.8.1998.
3. The impugned order had dismissed the objections of the objector; the parties had not been relegated to evidence; this is the primary grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. After some arguments, it has been agreed that the impugned order dated 15.4.2006 be set aside and the parties be granted liberty to lead their respective evidence in support of the application under Order 21 Rule 57 and 58 of the Code; evidence shall be led after the specific issues are framed on this count by the executing court; for the said purpose the parties are now directed to appear before executing court on 25.8.2011 who shall make endeavour to dispose of the application under Order 21 Rule 57 and 58 of the Code within an outer limit of three months. Till the disposal of this application, interim order passed by this Court protecting the properties (two trucks of the petitioner) shall continue.
5. With these directions this appeal is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 17, 2011
nandan
