Karnataka High Court
Nitesh Housing Developers Pvt Ltd vs Sri H Suresh on 29 June, 2022
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.12260 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. NITESH HOUSING DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.,
(A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956),
NOW KNOWN AS NHDPL
SOUTH PRIVATE LIMITED,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.110, LEVEL 1,
ANDREWS BUILDING,
M G ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
MR. SWAMY K B.,
AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O SRI. K. VEERABRAHMAM.
2. NITESH ESTATES LIMITED,
NOW KNOWN AS
NEL HOLDINGS SOUTH LIMITED,
(A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956),
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.110, LEVEL 1,
ANDREWS BUILDING,
M G ROAD,
2
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
MR. ASHUTOSH MISHRA,
AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O S.A.MISHRA.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT.LATHA S SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI. H. SURESH,
S/O LATE H.K.RAMAIAH,
NO.B-43,
"LEGACY DIMPORA APARTMENTS",
JAKKUR PLANTATION JAKKUR,
BANGALORE - 560 064.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.E.SUHAIL AHAMED, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER OF ATTACHMENT WARRANT DATED
18.06.2022 MADE IN COM.EX.CASE NO.82/2022 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU ANNEXURE - A; DIRECT
THE LEARNED LXXXIV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU TO TAKE THE OBJECTION OF THE
PETITIONERS ON RECORD IN COM.EX.CASE.NO.82/2022
ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the
Judgment Debtors feeling aggrieved by the
attachment warrant dated 18.06.2022 issued by the
learned LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge at Bengaluru in Commercial Execution Petition
No.82/2022 as per Annexure-A.
2. Respondent/Decree Holder has filed the
Execution Petition seeking recovery of money of
`11,93,43,196/-. The present petitioners/Judgment
Debtors sought leave of the Court to tender objection
to the application filed by the decree holder seeking
attachment warrant. The learned Trial Judge has
declined to grant an opportunity to the present
petitioners herein to contest the application seeking
attachment warrant.
3. Learned Senior counsel reiterating what is stated
in the statement of objections would fairly submit to
this Court that the petitioners are not disputing their
liability to pay the amount but however, the present
petitioners claim that the calculations furnished before
the Executing Court are not correct.
4. Be that as it may. Execution petition is filed by
the respondent/decree holder seeking recovery of
money of `11,93,43,196/-. It is trite law that before
issuing attachment warrant, Court needs to be
satisfied that judgment debtor is evading the
payment.
5. It is in this background, I am of the view that
the petitioners need to be heard in the present case
on hand before issuing an attachment warrant.
However, the present petitioners/judgment debtor
cannot be permitted to contest the application unless
they are willing to deposit some amount. Therefore,
this Court is of the view that the order under
challenge needs to be set aside, thereby, affording an
opportunity to the petitioners to contest the
application filed by the respondent/decree holder
seeking attachment warrant. However, the contest to
the said application by the petitioners is permitted
subject to petitioners depositing a sum of
`2,00,00,000/- within a period of four weeks. In the
event petitioners deposit a sum of `2,00,00,000/-
within a period of four weeks, petitioners shall be
permitted to address their arguments on the objection
which is already tendered in their application.
6. The learned Senior counsel at this juncture,
seeks leave of this Court to raise additional grounds
before the Execution Court on the next date of
hearing. In the event petitioners choose to file
additional grounds, the same has to be done by the
next date by serving a copy of additional grounds in
advance to the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/decree holder. With these observations, it
is made clear that petitioner/judgment debtor shall be
heard in the matter provided the petitioners deposit a
sum of `2,00,00,000/- before the Court within a
period of four weeks.
7. For the reasons stated supra, I pass the
following;
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order is set aside.
ii. The Court below shall hear the parties
on the application filed seeking
attachment warrant.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HDK
