Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 1209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Abhinav Immigration Services Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Sunita Seth - Respondent
CM(M) 792/2022
Decided On : 08-08-2022
Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Wasim Ashraf, Adv, for the Petitioner; Mr. Dhananjai Jain, Adv, for the Respondent
The court considered the petitioner's undertaking to pay a certain amount and set aside the direction for attachment, emphasizing the importance of the application for recall of the order.
Headnote:
Exemption - Stay - The court allowed the application for exemption subject to certain conditions and disposed of the stay application. The impugned order directed the issuance of warrants of attachment of the petitioner's properties, but after the petitioner's undertaking to pay a certain amount, the direction for attachment was set aside, and the matter was remanded for continuation of proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The impugned order directed the issuance of warrants of attachment of the petitioner's properties due to an alleged unpaid amount. The petitioner had filed an application for recall of the order, but it could not be taken up by the court due to the judge being on leave.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the direction for attachment after the petitioner undertook to pay a certain amount to the respondent within a specified period. The matter was remanded for continuation of proceedings in the executing court.
Issues: Calculation of the amount allegedly due from the petitioner, application for recall of the impugned order, and the setting aside of the direction for attachment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's undertaking to pay a certain amount and the fact that the application for recall of the order could not be taken up due to the judge being on leave.
Final Decision: The direction for issuance of warrants of attachment of the petitioner's property was set aside, subject to the petitioner's payment of the specified amount to the respondent within a specified period. The matter was remanded for continuation of proceedings in the executing court.
JUDGMENT
CM 35062/2022 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM(M) 792/2022 and CM 35061/2022 (stay)
3. The impugned order dated 4th July 2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge ('the learned ADJ') in Execution 137/2020 (Sunita Seth v. M/s Abhinav Outsourcings Pvt Ltd), directs issuance of warrants of attachment of the properties of the petitioner, who is judgment debtor before the learned ADJ in the aforesaid Execution Petition.
4. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that, as per the calculation-sheet filed by the respondent, who is the Decree Holder, the petitioner owed the respondent an amount of Rs 22,47,979/-, which had remained unpaid. As against this, Mr. Siddharth Yadav, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs 19,26,060/- already stands paid and that his client is willing to pay an amount of Rs 6,76,350/- to the respondent during the course of the day and to the person whom the respondent may designate in that regard.
5. It is also averred, in the petition, that an application for recall of the impugned order dated 4th July 2022 had been filed by the petitioner, questioning the computation by the respondent of the amount allegedly due from the petitioner, but that, as the learned Judge was on leave on both the days when the said application was listed, it could not be taken up.
6. For all of aforesaid reasons, especially the fact that an application for recall had been filed by the petitioner which for no fault of the petitioner could not be taken up by the respondent, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 4thJuly 2022.
7. Mr. Siddharth Yadav, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, undertakes, that his client would pay, to the respondent, an amount of Rs 6,76,350/- within a period of two days from today.
8. In view of the aforesaid undertaking of Mr. Yadav, Mr. Dhananjai Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent, is agreeable to setting aside of the direction for issuance of warrants of attachment and to remand of the matter for continuation of proceedings to the learned Executing Court, without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the execution proceedings.
9. Accordingly, subject to the amount of Rs 76,350/- being paid by the petitioner to the respondent or to the person identified by the respondent within a period of two days from today, the impugned direction for issuance of warrants of attachment of the petitioner's property shall stand set aside. The learned Executing Court would continue with the execution proceedings and deal with the same in accordance with law. It will also be open for the petitioner to press this application for recall of the order dated 4th July 2022 before the learned Executing Court.
10. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Miscellaneous application is also disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti to learned Counsel for the petitioner under the signature of Court Master.
