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

1993 Supreme(Del) 152

DALVEER BHANDARI
RAVI KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
UMESH CHAND JAIN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Anand Banarji, S.K.Luthra, USHA KUMARI

DALVEER BHANDARI

( 1 ) THE decreeholder has filed an application under Order XXI Rules, 11, 11-A, 13 and 41 read with Section 15of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decreeholder has obtained a Judgment and Decree from the Supreme Court of Hong Kong which is a superior court of a reciprocating territory" under Section 44-A of the code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) THE loan given by the decreeholder to the judgment-debtor is no longer in dispute. Now, the only obvious question which the decreeholder is called upon to reply is why is this execution petition filed in this court. Admittedly, the judgment-debtor owns no property in Hong Kong and on his admissions has no wherewithal in Hong Kong to satisfy the said decree. Therefore, recovery cannot be made through the courts in Hong Kong. According to the knowledge and information of the decreeholder, the only property in which the Judgment-debtor has share is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of this court, hence me execution of the said decree can legitimately be filed in this court alone. The decreeholder has reproduced the affirmation of the judgment-debtor in his petition and the same is reproduced as under:

"i do not live in Hong



















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top