IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that mere agreements or claims of ownership do not confer rights unless they comply with legal requirements, and that attachment orders can be upheld if the procedural requirements are met.

JUDGMENT

BASIC FACTS:

1. This petition is filed to challenge the Judgment and Order passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner had filed an appeal for challenging the order passed by the Co-operative Court holding that the petitioner had no subsisting right in the attached flats. The dispute was filed by the bank to recover the outstanding dues from respondent no. 2. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 are the directors of respondent no. 2. The petitioner claiming right, title and interest in the attached flats, had filed an application to get impleaded in the dispute and also prayed for releasing the attachment.

2. The petitioner claimed right, title and interest in the attached flats as owner based on an agreement dated 28th May 1997 and tenancy rights in favour of M/s. Papco Investment Corporation under tenancy agreement dated 22nd December 1995. The petitioner claims to have paid an amount of Rs. 30 Lakhs to respondent no. 2. The petitioner further claims that respondent nos. 3 and 4 had executed power of attorney in favour of one Mohan Bhatiya and Radhika Bhatiya, empowering them to enter into negotiations for the sale of the attached property and execute the required documents. The attached properties are flat nos. 411 and 412, which stood in the name of respondent nos. 3 and 4 ('said flats').

3. The petitioner claims to have paid the amount towards the first charge on the said flats raised by M/s. TCI Finance Limited. The petitioner claims to have repaid the amount by filing consent terms in execution proceedings initiated in this Court for the execution of the decree passed in the Secunderabad suit in favour of M/s. TCI Finance Limited. The petitioner thus claims that respondent nos. 3 and 4 thereafter executed an agreement for sale on 28th May 1997 for transferring the said flats in the name of the petitioner. Respondent no.-1 bank filed a recovery suit in the Co-operative Court against respondents nos. 2 and 3. In the said suit, an ex-parte order for attachment before Judgment was passed and a special recovery officer was appointed for execution of the order of attachment before Judgment. Hence, on 23rd June 1997, the petitioner informed respondent no. 1 that right, title, and interest had been created in favour of the petitioner, and the society has also issued no objection certificate ('NOC') for the transfer of the said flats in the name of the petitioner. It is the petitioner's case that in such circumstances, they filed an application in the Bank's suit for getting impleaded as a party defendant. Petitioner also filed a separate application for vacating the order of attachment before Judgment. The petitioner's applications were rejected. The Bank's Dispute application was allowed, directing respondent nos. 2 to 4 to pay the outstanding dues with interest, and the attachment of the flats was continued till the realisation of the awarded amount. Hence, the petitioner had filed two separate appeals. The cooperative appellate court disposed of the said appeals by a common judgment and order setting aside the rejection of the petitioner's applications and setting aside the continuation of the attachment order. The cooperative appellate court remanded the matter to the cooperative court for holding an inquiry on whether the petitioner had any subsisting right in the attached flats. After remand, the Co-operative Court decided the objection raised by the petitioner and declared that there was no subsisting right of the petitioner in the attached flats. Hence, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Cooperative Appellate Court. However, the said appeal is dismissed, resulting in confirmation of the order of attachment passed in favour of respondent no. 1. Hence, the present petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said flats are owned by respondent nos. 3 and 4 in their individual capacity and they have created righ