Delhi High Court
Abhinav Immigration Services ... vs Sunita Seth on 8 August, 2022
$~74
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 792/2022
ABHINAV IMMIGRATION
SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Wasim Ashraf, Adv.
versus
SUNITA SETH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Dhananjai Jain, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
% 08.08.2022
CM 35062/2022 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM(M) 792/2022 and CM 35061/2022 (stay)
3. The impugned order dated 4th July 2022, passed by the learned
Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in Execution 137/2020
(Sunita Seth v. M/s Abhinav Outsourcings Pvt Ltd), directs issuance of
warrants of attachment of the properties of the petitioner, who is
judgment debtor before the learned ADJ in the aforesaid Execution
Petition.
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:08.08.2022
15:31:39
4. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that, as per the
calculation-sheet filed by the respondent, who is the Decree Holder, the
petitioner owed the respondent an amount of₹ 22,47,979/-, which had
remained unpaid. As against this, Mr. Siddharth Yadav, learned Senior
₹ 19,26,060/
Counsel for the petitioner submits that an amount of -
already stands paid and that his client is willing to pay an amount of ₹
6,76,350/- to the respondent during the course of the day and to the
person whom the respondent may designate in that regard.
5. It is also averred, in the petition, that an application for recall of
the impugned order dated 4th July 2022 had been filed by the petitioner,
questioning the computation by the respondent of the amount allegedly
due from the petitioner, but that, as the learned Judge was on leave on
both the days when the said application was listed, it could not be taken
up.
6. For all of aforesaid reasons, especially the fact that an application
for recall had been filed by the petitioner which for no fault of the
petitioner could not be taken up by the respondent, the petitioner has
assailed the impugned order dated 4th July 2022.
7. Mr. Siddharth Yadav, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
undertakes, that his client would pay, to the respondent, an amount of ₹
6,76,350/- within a period of two days from today.
8. In view of the aforesaid undertaking of Mr. Yadav, Mr. Dhananjai
Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent, is agreeable to setting aside of
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:08.08.2022
15:31:39
the direction for issuance of warrants of attachment and to remand of the
matter for continuation of proceedings to the learned Executing Court,
without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the execution
proceedings.
9. Accordingly, subject to the amount of ₹ 76,350/- being paid by the
petitioner to the respondent or to the person identified by the respondent
within a period of two days from today, the impugned direction for
issuance of warrants of attachment of the petitioner's property shall stand
set aside. The learned Executing Court would continue with the
execution proceedings and deal with the same in accordance with law.
It will also be open for the petitioner to press this application for recall of
the order dated 4th July 2022 before the learned Executing Court.
10. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Miscellaneous application is also disposed of. Copy of this order be
given dasti to learned Counsel for the petitioner under the signature of
Court Master.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
AUGUST 8, 2022
r.bararia
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:08.08.2022
15:31:39
