Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 798
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LIMITED - Decree Holder
Vs.
M/S WESTERN EXPRESS (SERVICES) - Judgement Debtor
EX.P. 252/2006
Decided On : 12-02-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. Nikhilesh Krishna, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Dalpreet Singh, Advocate with Mr. Krishan Kumar Nareda, proprietor of the Judgment Debtor in person.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a judgment debtor's repeated non-compliance with court orders, false disclosures, and bad faith actions can justify civil imprisonment under the relevant provisions of the CPC.
Headnote:
CIVIL IMPRISONMENT - EXECUTION OF DECREE - ORDER XXI RULES 30, 41(3) - SECTIONS 51, 55, 58 AND 151 CPC - SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED: The court discussed the provisions of Order XXI Rules 30 and 41(3) of the CPC, along with Sections 51, 55, 58, and 151 of the CPC, which empower the court to execute a decree by detention in civil prison, attachment and sale of property, and requiring the judgment debtor to disclose his assets and means for satisfying the decree. The court also referred to the proviso to Section 51, which mandates giving the judgment debtor an opportunity to show cause before ordering civil imprisonment.
Fact of the Case:
The decree holder sought civil imprisonment of the judgment debtor for non-payment of a decree amounting to Rs. 28,87,490.57. The judgment debtor failed to appear in court multiple times, made false disclosures about his income and assets, and disposed of his car after it was attached by the court. The court found the judgment debtor to be evasive and incorrigible, leading to a prolonged execution process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgment debtor had repeatedly failed to comply with orders to disclose his assets and income, made false disclosures, and acted in bad faith by disposing of attached property. The court concluded that the judgment debtor had the means to pay the decree amount but refused to do so, justifying civil imprisonment.
Issues: The issues involved the judgment debtor's non-compliance with court orders, false disclosures, and evasive conduct, leading to a prolonged and unsuccessful execution process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the judgment debtor's repeated non-compliance, false disclosures, and bad faith actions justified civil imprisonment under the provisions of Order XXI Rules 30 and 41(3) and Sections 51, 55, 58, and 151 of the CPC.
Final Decision: The court directed the civil imprisonment of the judgment debtor for three months or until the decree amount was paid, citing the judgment debtor's incorrigible conduct and refusal to comply with court orders.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
Ex.Appln. (OS) No. 1123/2015
1. This application has been preferred by the decree holder under Order XXI Rules 30, 41(3) read with Sections 51, 55, 58 and 151 CPC. The decree holder, by this application, seeks that the judgment debtor – K.K.Nareda, be sent to civil imprisonment.
2. The background facts are that the decree holder filed a civil suit being CS(OS) No. 1938/2001 for recovery of Rs. 28,87,490.57/-. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant was appointed as their clearing and forwarding agent vide letter dated 23.12.1997. The claim arose on account of the defendant not delivering the goods to the plaintiff. The defendant did not appear to contest the suit despite service of summons and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.12.2003. The plaintiff led ex parte evidence of Mr. Dinkar Prakash Bhardwaj, Senior Accountant of the plaintiff at its Delhi office. After giving adjustment to the amount of bank guarantee and other permissible amounts, the amount recoverable from the defendant was stated to be Rs. 15,79,302.57/-. Besides the said amount, the defendant was also found liable to pay interest of Rs. 13,08,188/-. Resultantly, the court passed a decree for Rs. 28,87,490.57/- against the defendant with costs and pendente lite and future interest @ 15 % per annum till realization.
3. The decree holder instituted the present execution petition in November, 2006. Despite service, the judgment debtor did not appear and, consequently, bailable warrants were issued on 30.05.2007. Despite service of bailable warrants, the judgment debtor did not appear on 25.03.2008 on the ground that he was held up at Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. Ultimately, the judgment debtor appeared only on 09.05.2008. He was then directed to file a list of his movable and immovable assets standing in his name.
4. On 03.10.2008, the judgment debtor made a disclosure of his three bank accounts and about his owning an Indica Car of 2005 model which was stated to be hypothecated with HDFC Bank, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. The banker was directed not to release the papers of the Car without intimation to the Court. The judgment debtor informed that he had joined services of Innovative B2B Logistics Solutions Ltd., as G.M. (Domestic Business Development) and is drawing a salary of Rs. 48,000/- per month. He stated that he would deposit in this Court 33% of his salary on the 10th of every month. He stated that he would make the deposit without prejudice to his contentions and right to seek setting aside of ex parte decree. I may observe that neither the said 33% of the salary was ever deposited by the judgment debtor, nor did he seek the setting aside of the ex parte decree against him. He also did not prefer a Regular First Appeal to assail the ex-parte judgment and decree.
5. The judgment debtor did not appear when the matter was taken up on 27.11.2008 and, consequently, once again bailable warrants were issued for his production. However, the judgment debtor did not appear on the next date i.e. on 21.01.2009. His salary was attached by issuing notice to his employer B2B Logistics Solutions Ltd.. Once again, bailable warrants were issued for his production.
6. He appeared on the next date, i.e., 28.04.2009. On that date, he gave his current residential address which was stated to be on monthly rent of Rs. 11,000/-. He stated that the premises was taken on rent since September, 2008 and the rent was being paid in cash. He was asked to produce before the Court the rent agreement and rent receipts within a week.
7. The judgment debtor did not, once again, appear before the Court on 11.05.2009 and, consequently, bailable warrants were issued for his production. Warrants of attachment in respect of the Indica Car owned by the judgment debtor was also issued, returnable on 22.07.2009. On 22.07.2009, the judgment debtor appeared in response to th
