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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Harinder Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Girish Peshoria - Respondent
EX.P. 73 of 2021 and EA 250 of 2022 (u of S 151 of CPC)
Decided On : 29-08-2022




A consent decree's terms are binding and must be executed as agreed; fraudulent transfers to evade obligations are voidable under the Transfer of Property Act.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Execution of consent decree - Execution petition filed for recovery of possession and amount due based on consent decree dated 14th December 2018 - Judgment debtor failed to comply with agreed terms and raised objections, which the court found meritless because they were inconsistent and aimed at avoiding payment - Court dismissed objections and proceeded with issuance of warrants for attachment of property. (Paras 2, 17, 20)

(B) Consent Decree - Binding nature - A consent decree must be executed as per the agreed terms, and parties cannot raise inconsistent demands post-agreement. (Paras 6, 18)

(C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 53 - Fraudulent transfer - Transfer of property by the judgment debtor found to have been made with intent to defeat the decree holder's rights, rendering it voidable at the decree holder's option. (Paras 17, 20)

Facts of the case:
The execution petition was initiated to enforce a consent decree wherein a judgment debtor was to vacate and pay a sum of Rs. 4 crores, but failed to make the payment citing issues regarding registration of relinquishment deeds and the necessity of original title documents.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the objection on the basis of documentation was without merit as the judgment debtor had waived his right to contest post-withdrawal of a modification application. The judgment debtor's conduct indicated an attempt to transfer property to evade obligations.

Issues: Whether the payment terms of the consent decree were contingent on the registration of relinquishment deeds and the consequences of a fraudulent property transfer.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that consent decree terms must be adhered to, and fraudulent transfers of property to evade creditor commitments are voidable, underscoring that a party cannot escape consent obligations based on inconsistent claims.

Result: Objections dismissed; warrants for attachment issued.

Table of Content
1. execution petition details and property possession directive (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6)
2. judgment debtor's arguments regarding payment terms and document claims (Para 7 , 8 , 11)
3. counsel's submissions and court's considerations (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. court's analysis of debtor's objections and fraudulent transfer (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. court's dismissal of objections and order for attachment (Para 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--The present execution petition has been filed seeking execution of the decree passed by this Court on 14th December, 2018 in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

2. By way of the present execution proceedings, the decree holder seeks the following directions against the judgment debtor:

(i) The Judgment debtor be directed to surrender vacant and peaceful possession of the entire first floor of the property bearing No.14, Eastern Avenue, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi-110065 to the decree holder (Maharani Bagh Property).

(ii) Direct judgment debtor to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 14th June, 2019 till the date of payment.

3. Notice in the execution petition was issued on 16th December, 2021. The objections have been filed by the Judgment Debtor on 24th February, 2022 and the decree holder has filed a reply to the objections.

4. It was noted in the order dated 23rd December, 2021 that the judgment debtor, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, shall vacate the first floor of the Maharani Bagh property on or before 14th February, 2022. As noted in the order dated 25th February, 2022, the possession of the first floor of the Maharani Bagh property has been handed over to the decree holder.

5. Counsels for the parties have been heard in respect of the objections filed by the judgment debtor on 13th July, 2022 and today. The written submissions have been filed on behalf of the decree holder.

6. The decree of which the execution is sought was a consent decree passed by this Court on 14th December, 2018 after recording the statement of the decree holder and the judgment debtor. The relevant terms of the settlement as recorded in the statement of the decree holder are set out below:

    "(i) The right, title and interest in the immovable property along with superstructure located at 14, Easter Avenue, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi-110065 (in short `Maharani Bagh') would vest in me.

    (ii) Mr. Girish Peshoria would surrender possession of the first floor of Maharani Bagh property. The possession of the first floor will be handed over to me within six months from today.

    (iii) The right, title and interest in the factory shed along with the land underneath which is located at 14/5, Mathura Road, Faridabad (in short `Faridabad property') will vest in Mr. Girish Peshoria.

    (iv) Mr. Girish Peshoria will pay a sum of Rs.4 crores (Rs. Four Crores) to me within six months from today. The said sum of Rs.4 crores will be secured by Mr. Girish Peshoria by furnishing a Post-Dated Cheque (PDC) for an equivalent amount within five days from today.

    (v) In case, a need arises to encash the PDC and on presentation, it is dishonoured, interest at the rate of 18% per annum will run on the sum of Rs.4 crores from the date the PDC is dishonoured.

    (vi) In case any tax, charge, cess or liability of any nature is payable qua the Maharani Bagh property and the Faridabad property, which would include liability towards creditors and statutory authorities, which are due and payable as of today and those which may accrue hereafter, the same will be paid by the person in whom the right, title and interest in the property enures as per the instant settlement. In other words, insofar as Maharani Bagh property is concerned, the liability will be borne by me, while the liability with regard to Faridabad property will be borne by Mr. Girish Peshoria.

    (vii) Both Mr. Girish Peshoria and myself

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