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

2023 Supreme(Del) 2217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Davinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
M/s Imaginearc Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
CM(M) 280 of 2023
Decided On : 29-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Rajat Arora and Ms. Mariya Shahab, Advocates, for the Petitioner.

The executing court should issue notice to the judgment debtor and proceed with the execution proceedings in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Headnote:

Notice - Execution Proceedings - The court directed the executing court to issue notice to the judgment debtor and proceed with the execution proceedings in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenges the order refraining from issuing notice to the judgment debtor due to the statutory period of appeal not having lapsed.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the executing court to issue notice to the judgment debtor and proceed with the execution proceedings in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Issues: Delay in issuing notice to the judgment debtor based on the statutory period of appeal not having lapsed.

Ratio Decidendi: The executing court should proceed with the execution proceedings in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and keep in mind the time frame stipulated in the judgment of Rahul S. Shah.

Final Decision: The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 19.01.2023 passed in Ex. (Comm) 13/2023 titled Davinder Kumar vs. Imaginearc Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, whereby the learned Executing Court had refrained from issuing notice to the judgment debtor on the ground that the statutory period of appeal had not lapsed as on that date.

2. Mr. Rajat Arora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/decree holder submits that there was no occasion for the learned Executing Court to have delayed the issuance of notice to the respondent/judgment debtor on the ground that statutory period of the appeal has not lapsed yet.

3. In view of the aforesaid, learned Executing Court is directed to issue notice to the respondent/judgment debtor forthwith and proceed with the execution proceedings in all earnest and in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418.

4. The learned Executing Court shall also keep in mind the time frame as stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Rahul S. Shah (supra) while conducting the execution proceedings.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top