Karnataka High Court
Sri C Raje Gowda vs M/ S Kapil Chits (K) Pvt Ltd on 5 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4761
WP No. 847 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 847 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI C RAJE GOWDA
@ RAJU, S/O CHIKKE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
NO.B-23, NO.304
KHBKS TOWN
BANGALORE - 560 060
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHUTOSH K L FOR SRI. M S VENUGOPAL .,ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally signed
by PAVITHRA
N 1. M/ S KAPIL CHITS (K) PVT LTD
Location: high NO.499, IST FLOOR
court of EAST END MAIN ROAD
karnataka 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 068
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL OFFICER
2. SRI PRAMOD VERNEKAR B S
S/O SADANAND VERNEKAR
NO.18, 6TH CRISS
NAGASANDRA, GAVIPURAM
THYAGARAJA NAGARA
BANGALORE - 560 026
3. SRI B R SHARATH
S/O RATHNAKA
NO.212, CHANNAMMANAKERE
2ND MAIN, THAYAGARAJA NAGARA
BANGALORE- 560 026
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4761
WP No. 847 of 2016
4. SRI A PRASHANTH
S/O ANJANEYALU
NO.113, 2ND CROSS
4TH MAIN, TSF
BANGALORE - 560 094
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N RAJA RAJESWARI FOR R1 .,ADVOCATE
V/O DATED 10.01.2024-PETITION AGSINT R3 AND 4 DISMISSED
V/O DATED 10.01.2024-NOTICE TO R2-HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ATTACHMENT
OF WARRANT OF MOVABLES DATED 24.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE
25TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE IN
EX.P.NO.2214/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-E. DIERCT THE COURT BELOW
PROCEED AGAINST THE PETITIONER ONLY IF IT IS SHOWN TO THE
COURT THAT THE EXECUTION OF THE DECREE AGAINST THE
BORROWER HAS BECOME IMPOSSIBLE AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B-GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Judgment debtor No.2 in Ex.P.No.2214 of 2011 on the file
of learned XXV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-18),
is impugning the order dated 24.11.2015, issuing attachment
warrant of movables as per Annexure-E.
2. Heard Sri. Ashutosh K.L, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt. N Raja Rajeswari, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 Perused the materials on record.
NC: 2024:KHC:4761
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner herein is judgment debtor No.2 before the Executing
Court. As per order dated 02.11.2012, attachment warrant of
movables was issued against judgment debtor No.1. But as per
Annexure-E, attachment of salary of the petitioner is issued.
There is no such order passed in that regard. Therefore, the
petitioner is before this Court.
4. On perusal of the materials, it is noticed that the
Arbitral award was put into execution by the respondents. As
per order dated 02.11.2012 attachment warrant of movables
belonging to judgment debtor No.1 was issued. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that he has nothing to do
with the said order as it is only against movables belonging to
judgment debtor No.1 . But it is the contention that as per
Annexure -E, a warrant is issued for attachment of salary of
judgment debtor No.2 and the same is called in question before
this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a
position to justify his contention as to why the petitioner
approached this Court seeking quashing of issuance of warrant
NC: 2024:KHC:4761
against him, in spite of there being no specific order to that
effect. His only contention is that when the attachment of
movables belonging to judgment debtor No.1 was issued, there
was no justification for the Executing Court to issue warrant
attaching the salary of judgment debtor No.2. The best thing
that could have been done by the petitioner is to bring to the
notice of Executing Court for the purpose of withdrawing the
warrant if the contention taken by the petitioner that there was
no such order by the Court is correct. On the other hand,
petition was filed before this Court on 06.01.2016 and he is
successful in getting stay against the attachment warrant.
Since from 15.07.2022, the interim order of stay was never
extended, but learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
execution case is still pending as the writ petition pending
before this Court. Thereby, the petitioner is successful in
stalling the execution before the Trial Court for no valid
reasons. There is no order which is impugned by the petitioner
before this Court. There is absolutely no valid reason for the
petitioner to rush to this Court. Hence, he is directed to go
before the Executing Court and bring it to the notice any
irregularities and to get necessary order. I do not find any
NC: 2024:KHC:4761
reason to entertain the petition. However, since the petitioner
has unnecessarily approached this Court and stalled the
execution proceedings for about seven years, the petition is
liable to be dismissed with cost.
6. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-
to be paid to the decree holder within seven days from today,
failing which, the decree holder is entitled to recover the same
as part of the award amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPV
