Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Rakbro Industrial Corporation & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Suraj Auto Stores & Anr. – Respondents
C.R.P. 108 of 2023
Decided On : 04-05-2023
Forgery - Execution of Decree - Section 47 CPC - Central Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - [FRAUD ON THE COURT] - [MANUFACTURING UNIT AND DISTRIBUTORS] - [Section 47 CPC] - [Central Sales Tax Act, 1957, Section 3] - [Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a manufacturing unit and its distributors. The distributors filed a civil suit against the manufacturing unit based on alleged false documents and obtained an ex parte decree. The manufacturing unit's objections under Section 47 CPC were dismissed by the Executing Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the objections raised by the manufacturing unit were beyond the jurisdiction of the Executing Court and amounted to retrial of the suit, which is impermissible. The Court also noted that the manufacturing unit had made every effort over the years to deprive the distributors of the fruit of the decree.
Issues: The main issues included the alleged forgery of documents, lack of privity of contract between the parties, and the format of retail invoices under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1957.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Executing Court's jurisdiction is limited to determining questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree and cannot go behind the decree, except where it is a nullity or suffers from jurisdictional infirmities. The Court emphasized that objections requiring retrial of the suit are beyond the scope of the Executing Court's jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The Revision Petition was dismissed, and the impugned order passed by the Executing Court was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)
C.M. APPL. 22672/2023 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
C.R.P. 108/2023
1. Present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 01.03.2023, passed by the Executing Court in Ex. No.25/2015 dismissing the objections of the Petitioners herein under Section 47 CPC. Petitioners were the Judgment Debtors before the Executing Court and Respondents were the Decree Holders and parties are referred to hereinafter by their litigating status before this Court.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which emerge from a reading of the present petition are that Petitioner No.1 is a manufacturing unit which came into existence in 1977 and a proprietorship concern whereof Petitioner No.2 is the proprietor. It is averred that over three decades of enterprise, experience and expertise, Petitioner No.1 has emerged as one of the leading construction equipment manufacturing companies in India and plays a major role in the road construction and building industry. Respondents are erstwhile authorized distributors of Hindustan Composites Ltd., the OEM of various friction materials in India such as brake lining, clutch facing, etc. Being a DGS&D rate contract supplier, Petitioners preferred to purchase all their friction materials directly from Hindustan Composites Ltd., to ensure quality and genuineness of the parts.
3. It is stated that a verbal purchase order was placed on Hindustan Composites Ltd., in September, 2010, for purchase of friction sheets of various sizes and dimensions and the company directed the Petitioners to its authorized distributors i.e. the Respondents herein, which offer was rejected by the Petitioners as they did not want to do any direct business with the Respondents. Later, on confirmation between the Petitioners and Hindustan Composites Ltd., an advance payment of Rs.76,844/- was paid to Hindustan Composites Ltd., after which subject materials were dispatched from Maharashtra and delivered to the Petitioners on 04.10.2010. The transporters handed over copy of the consignment note dated 04.10.2020 which, according to the Petitioners, reflects the transaction/sale of goods between the two parties, and also the fact that Respondents had no role in this transaction. The absence of the Respondents in the transaction is also evident from the fact that the freight charges were paid by Hindustan Composites Ltd. who were the owners/manufacturers of the friction sheets.
4. It is averred that after receiving the materials, Petitioners submitted Form `C' under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1957 in the name of Hindustan Composites Ltd. to seek the tax relief. The counterfoil receipt of this Form `C' also reflected the name of Hindustan Composites Ltd. for the subject transaction. However, for reasons unknown, Respondents filed the Civil Suit being CS No.15373/2013 against the Petitioners premised on false, fabricated and frivolous documents including invoices showcasing an alleged transaction in October, 2010 as one between the Petitioners and the Respondents. The suit was decreed ex parte on 30.08.2014 for a sum of Rs.1,18,340/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. in favour of the Respondents.
5. On learning of the ex parte decree, Petitioners filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which was dismissed on 03.01.2015 and the appeal against the said order was also dismissed on 29.07.2015. On account of wrong advice, Petitioners did not file a second appeal before this Court. Respondents thereafter filed an Execution Petition being Ex. P. No.5079/2016 for execution of the decree dated 30.08.2014. Objections filed by the Petitioners under Section 47 CPC were dismissed by the impugned order.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that there is glaring illegality in the impugned order as the entire case of the Respondents was based on retail invoices and once their veracity and genuineness was questioned, the entire decree becam
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Executing Court's jurisdiction is limited to specific questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree, and o....
The executing court cannot go behind the decree unless it is a nullity, and re-agitating objections already dismissed in a previous petition would amount to an abuse of process of law.
The court emphasized the limited grounds on which a decree is unexecutable and highlighted that the right of the Decree Holder to obtain relief is determined in accordance with the terms of the decre....
An execution petition cannot contest the merits of a decree when jurisdiction was previously established, reaffirming that challenges must focus on inherent jurisdictional defects.
An executing court is limited to enforcing a decree as it stands; it cannot engage in fact-finding beyond the explicit terms of the decree, particularly in execution of vague prohibitory orders.
(1) Failure to present written statement – Court is not supposed to pass a mechanical judgment invoking Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC merely on the basis of plaint, upon failure of a defendant to file a....
The executing court is bound by the decree's terms and cannot entertain objections that do not pertain to jurisdiction, even if the decree is allegedly erroneous.
The Executing Court must execute decrees as per their terms without questioning merits or introducing new factual disputes.
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
