Delhi High Court
Adonis Limited vs Narotam Sayal & Anr. on 22 September, 2017
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 22nd September, 2017
+ TR.P.(C.) 106/2017
ADONIS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ekta Sikri and Mr. Junaid
Nahvi, Advocates
versus
NAROTAM SAYAL & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.S. Mathur and Ms. Sweta
Singh, Advocates for D-1
Ms. Priya Kumar, Ms. Tanya
Tiwari and Mr. Anand Chichra,
Advocate for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The petition at hand invokes the jurisdiction of this court under
Section 24(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to seek
withdrawal of two execution petitions pending in the district courts
and their transfer to this court for further proceedings in their respect
alongwith a third execution petition pending on the original side here.
On notice, the respondents who are described as judgment debtors in
the execution cases have appeared to resist the prayer.
2. The decrees which are sought to be executed in all the three
petitions are stated to have been passed by the High Court of Hong
Kong.
3. The three execution petitions include one registered as
Execution Petition No.61/2012, titled Adonis Ltd. Vs. Narotam Sayal,
which is pending further proceedings before a learned single Judge of
this court on the original side. The execution petitioner Adonis Ltd.,
also the petitioner in the proceedings at hand, explains that it was
formerly known as M/S Mayar Hong Kong Ltd. The other two
execution petitions were also initially presented on the original side of
this court, they having been referred to Execution petition
no.147/2009, titled Mayar Hong Kong Ltd. Vs. Ashita Impex Pvt. Ltd.
and Execution Petition no.148/2009, titled Mayar Hong Kong Ltd. Vs.
Narotam Sayal. The said other two execution petitions were
transferred from the original side of this court to the District Courts,
first one to the court of Additional District Judge of South District at
Saket and the other one to the District Court of New Delhi District at
Patiala House Courts on account of change in the pecuniary
jurisdiction.
4. Since Mayar Hong Kong Ltd., the decree holder in whose name
the said matters were presented, is now known as Adonis Ltd., the
petitioners in the three cases are common. The first respondent,
Narotam Sayal, is the judgment debtor in the execution case pending
on the original side of this court as also in the second above said
execution petition now pending on the file of Additional District Judge
at New Delhi Courts.
5. It is the submission of the petitioner that Ashita Impex Pvt.
Ltd., the judgment debtor in the third case pending on the file of
Additional District Judge at South District is alter ego of Mr. Narotam
Sayal, reliance in this regard being placed on conclusions to this effect
reached in the judgment in Commercial Action no.4/2007, which is
sought to be executed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has shown, with reference
to copies of various orders passed in the context of the three execution
petitions during the period all of them were pending before a learned
single judge on the original side of this court that they were taken up
together by the same bench, it being a common submission of both
sides that all the three execution petitions give rise to a (preliminary)
common question of law concerning the executability of the foreign
decrees in India in terms of Section 44A CPC. The petitioners claim
that there are reciprocal arrangements between India and Hong Kong
and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the courts in India has been properly
invoked in these matters, a contention which is disputed by the other
side.
7. It was also brought out during the submissions that the
execution petitioners had obtained certain orders for attachment of
certain properties of the two respondents herein in the course of
proceedings arising out of the execution petition no.61/2012 though it
was also conceded that some objections have been filed by parties
other than judgment debtors against such attachment orders. It is the
case of the petitioners that the said very properties would require to be
proceeded against even in the context of the other two execution
petitions.
8. In the above fact-situation, it is deemed just and proper that all
the three execution cases are heard and the issues arising therein
adjudicated upon by the same court.
9. In above view of the matter, the prayer for transfer of the two
execution petitions back from the District Courts to this court deserves
to be granted. Whether or not the three cases are to be clubbed for
adjudication of the issues that may be common, however, rather be left
to be considered by the appropriate bench. The grant of the prayer for
transfer is only to facilitate consideration of the common issues by the
same court, it not to be construed as an expression of opinion on
merits of the questions of law, or of fact, that arise.
10. The petition is thus allowed. The execution petition described
as one registered vide no.147/2009, presently pending in the court of
Additional District Judge (South) at Saket, titled Mayar Hong Kong
Ltd. Vs. Ashita Impex Pvt. Ltd. and the execution petition
no.148/2009, titled Mayar Hong Kong Ltd. Vs. Narotam Sayal,
presently pending on the file of the Additional District Judge, New
Delhi at Patiala House Courts Complex are withdrawn from the said
respective courts and transferred to the original side of this court to be
taken up alongside the execution petition no.61/2012, titled Adonis
Ltd. Vs. Narotam Sayal.
11. The transferor courts are directed to send the files of the
respective cases to this court in terms of this order fixing an
appropriate date for the parties to appear before the transferee court.
12. The petition is disposed of in above terms.
13. A copy of this order shall be sent to the respective transferor
courts for needful compliance.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 22, 2017
yg
