Mr Nimish Bhatia vs Mr Deepak Shindhe
2021 Latest Caselaw 6197 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

        WRIT PETITION NO.22463/2021 (GM-CPC)


BETWEEN :

MR NIMISH BHATIA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO 1107, AVON
PRESTIGE KENSINGTON GARDEN
NO 17, HMT FACTORY ROAD
JALAHALLI
BENGALURU 560013
                                       ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SAHANA B V, ADVOCATE)
AND :

1.      MR DEEPAK SHINDHE
        S/O DR V S LOKANATH RAO SINDHE
        AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
        R/AT NO 10, CASTLE STREET
        ASHOKNAGAR, BENGALURU 560025
        PRESENTLY IN NW JERSEY, USA
        AND REP BY HIS OWNER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
        MR SUHAIL AHMED
        S/O ABDUL KHYAUM SAB
        AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
        RA/T NO 27, EAST STREET
        NEELASANDRA
        BENGALURU 560047
                            2



2.   FOUR FLAVOURS LLP
     A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
     HAVING ITS REGISTRED OFFICE AT
     NO 133/2, 4TH FLOOR
     JANARDHAN TOWERS
     RESIDENCY ROAD
     BENGALURU 560025
     REP BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNERS
     MR NIMISH BHATIA AND MR BRIJESH D K
                                 ... RESPONDENTS


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DTD.1.10.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE
EXECUTING     COURT    IN     EXECUTION   PETITION
NO.623/2019 (ANNXURE-A) ORDER BEING ISSUED XLII
ACC AND S.J. AT BENGLAURU ATTACHMENT WARRANT
OF MOVABLE OF JDR AND ETC.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                      ORDER

The petitioner, who is one of the partners of a

Limited Liability Partnership (the second respondent)

and the judgment debtor in execution No.623/2019 on

the file of the XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions

judge, Bengaluru (for short, 'the executing Court'), has

impugned the executing Court's order dated 01.10.2021

issuing attachment warrant.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the second respondent has placed on record before

the executing Court that the second respondent's

current registered address is in premise bearing

No.133/2, 4th Floor, Janardhan Towers, Residency

Road, Bengaluru, and if any warrant would be issued it

must be only as against the movables of the second

respondent and the movables owned by one of the

partners of the limited liability firm cannot be attached.

But, the executing Court without considering the same

has issued warrant for attachment of movables.

The learned counsel further submits that the

bailiff, who wanted to execute the warrant at the

petitioner's residential premise, has filed a report with

the executing Court stating that the petitioner has

created a furore and therefore, he would need the

assistance of the local Police to execute the attachment

warrant. Consequentially, the decree holder (the first

respondent) has filed application for Police assistance

and this application is pending consideration.

In the light of the grounds urged and the

subsequent circumstance placed on record, this Court

is of the considered view that the petitioner must be at

liberty to contest the present application filed by the

first respondent for Police assistance relying upon the

grounds urged in the present petition and if such

grounds are urged, the executing Court must

necessarily pass orders after deciding on the same and

issuing clarification, if required.

The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid

observation.

SD/-

JUDGE

RB