Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Abhinav Immigration Services Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Sunita Seth - Respondent
CM(M) 792 of 2022
Decided On : 08-08-2022
Court emphasized the need to address disputes over payment calculation before executing attachment warrants, allowing further review of proceedings while ensuring compliance with payment obligations.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Execution proceedings - The court set aside the issuance of warrants for attachment of properties due to an ongoing dispute over the calculation of dues owed by the petitioner to the respondent - The petitioner undertook to pay the amount of Rs.6,76,350/- within two days, which led to the remand of proceedings back to the learned Executing Court for continuation of the case. (Paras 4, 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant is contesting the order of the learned Additional District Judge directing the attachment of the appellant’s properties based on an unpaid amount. The appellant claims to have paid a significant part of the dues and has expressed willingness to pay the remaining amount promptly.
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged the undertaking of the appellant to pay the outstanding amount, thereby justifying the setting aside of the attachment warrants and allowing further proceedings in the executing court.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was the validity of the computation of the dues owed by the petitioner and the necessity of issuing attachment warrants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the ongoing dispute regarding payment necessitated a reconsideration of the attachment order and emphasized the importance of ensuring that the matter received a fair hearing in the executing court.
Result: The petition was disposed of allowing the payment to be made and setting aside the attachment order.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
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 4th July 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.
