SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Bom) 387

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
N.D. Vyas, J.
Union Bank of India.... Plaintiffs.
Versus
M/s. Mittersain Rupchand and others.... Defendants.
Chamber Summons No. 563 of 1991 in Summary Suit No. 1975 of 1988, decided on 8-2-
1994.
Advocates appeared :
P.V. Shah, for plaintiffs.
M.N. Bansal with Anil Dave, for defendants.

Headnote:Section 15

       See Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section 60 (1).

       

JUDGMENT - N.D. VYAS, J.:-By the present Chamber Summons, which is taken out by the defendants, the defendants have prayed that the Notice of Attachment dated 27th September, 1989 in Execution Application No. 229 of 1989 issued in the above suit and attachment levied pursuant thereto be set aside and/or raised; that the ex parte order dated 9th March, 1990 passed by this Court in Notice No. 119 of 1990 in the above summary suit be set aside and the Garnishee Notice No. 119 of 1990 be restored to file for hearing on merits.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present Chamber Summons are as follows:

The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 7th June, 1988 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,43,810/- due and payable by the defendants. Prior to the filing of the suit, in a suit filed by National Textile Mill against the defendants in Coimbatore Court, a decree was passed against the defendants herein on 12th March, 1986. On 20th May, 1988, attachment was levied in the said decree passed in favour of the National Textile Mill. As far as the present suit is concerned, the same was decreed against defendant Nos. 1 to 4 on 20th March, 1989. On 17th April, 1989, Sale Warrant was issued in consequence of the decree in the said Coimbatore Suit. On 26th July, 1989, the defendants made an application in Coimbatore Court to set aside the said decree passed by Coimbatore Court. In September, 1989, Execution Application was made in the present suit. On 27th September, 1989 attachment was levied in the present suit. In the Execution Application, in reply to Column `J thereof, the plaintiffs have mentioned as to what they wanted to be sold in execution. The Schedule annexed thereto, as far as it relates to immovable properties, mentions as follows :

"Goodwill and Tenancy rights of the defendants in their aforesaid concern and business premises."

Notice under Order 21, Rule 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code) dated 27th September, 1989 also mentions - "The movables and immovable properties belonging to the defendants but in the custody of the Sheriff, having been already attached on 20th May, 1988 and being still under attachment in execution of the decree dated ........ and transferred for execution to the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay,.........". Warrant for Sale of immovable property under Order 21, Rule 64 of the Code was issued on 6th August, 1990 describing therein the immovable properties required to be sold and it states as under :

"the following moveable and immoveable properties, viz., the goodwill as a going concern and the tenancy rights of the business of the defendants abovenamed known as M/s. Mittersain Rupchand, situated at 336-A, 3rd floor, Kalbadevi Road, Bombay - 400 002."

First Garnishee Notice bearing No. 1269 of 1989 covering cash only lying with the Sheriff was issued on 29th November, 1989. The said Notice was made absolute on 30th January, 1990. Second Garnishee Notice bearing No. 119 of 1990 covering properties other than cash was issued on 5th February, 1990 and the same was made absolute on 9th March, 1990. However, in the meantime, on 1st March, 1990, the decree passed in favour of National Textile Mill by the Coimbatore Court was set aside and the sale warrants in the present suit were issued thereafter. Chamber Summons No. 1265 of 1990 was taken out on 6th December, 1990 by the defendants praying, inter alia, for setting aside of order dated 9th March, 1990 in the Garnishee Notice No. 119 of 1990. The same was dismissed on 16th February, 1991 from which an appeal was preferred being Appeal No. 507 of 1991 which was withdrawn on 12th June, 1991. The present Chamber Summons was taken out on 28th June, 1991 and was dismissed on 13th September, 1991. Appeal No. 1092 of 1991 was preferred by the defendants on 18th November, 1991 from the order dismissing the present Chamber Summons. After the said appeal was admitted on 16th December, 1991, an order was passed in the sai




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top