Back
MUKUL MUDGAL
INDOOR TABLE TENNIS TRUST – Appellant
Versus
KAPIL KHANNA – Respondent
The court concluded that the territorial jurisdiction of the executing court in garnishee proceedings is not strictly limited by the location of the garnishee or the situs of the debt. Instead, the court can direct execution outside its territorial jurisdiction, regardless of the garnishee's or the debt's location, provided there is no irregularity in attachment and the attachment was validly made (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the court emphasized that objections regarding jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest possible stage, specifically before the amount is paid into court. Objections raised after the deposit, particularly when the deposit has already been made, are generally not entertained, especially if such objections are belated or raised for the first time after significant procedural steps have been completed (!) (!) .
The court also noted that the deposit of the amount in court does not automatically waive the objection to jurisdiction or irregularities in attachment, but the timing of such objections is critical. If objections are raised after the deposit has been made, they are likely to be considered as an abuse of process or as irregularities that cannot be rectified at that stage (!) (!) .
In this specific case, the court found that the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction was first raised well after the deposit had been made, and therefore, the objection was not sustainable. The court rejected the preliminary objection based on jurisdiction and directed that the matter be listed before the appropriate court for further proceedings (!) (!) .
Overall, the court's conclusion is that in garnishee proceedings, the timing of raising jurisdictional objections is crucial, and objections raised after the deposit of funds are generally not entertained unless there are exceptional circumstances. The court reaffirmed that the deposit of funds in court signifies acceptance of jurisdiction unless the objection is raised timely and validly at an earlier stage.
( 1 ) IN this execution application filed by a decree holder a preliminary plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court has been raised by the Garnishee Bank, namely, Ghaziabad Nagariya Sahakari Bank Ltd. , Ghaziabad.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:
(I)THE petitioner is the original decree holder against the judgment debtor Kapil Khanna. The decree dated 12th May 1998 was not appealed against and the amount awarded as per the decree is Rs. 27,87,226. 08 together with costs assessed at Rs. 29. 730. /05. The decree is sought to be executed against the judgment-debtor and inter alia an order of attachment of property bearing No. C 89, NDSE Part II, New Delhi has been sought.
(II)THE decree is resisted by the Garnishee bank and the contention raised is that since the Garnishee Bank and the situs of the debt are outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court had no jurisdiction to execute the decree. It was, inter alia, also contended that the amount of Rs. 4. 24 lacs were deposited in this Court but the plea regarding jurisdiction of this Court and the effect and ambit of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereina
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
