IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Attaching bank account is within the jurisdiction of the Commission.
(2) Only amount defaulted should be attached.

ORDER

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—The present Execution Appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.09.2021 of the State Commission, Delhi, whereby in an execution application No. 38 of 2021, for executing the order dated 23.12.2020 in CC no. 268 of 2015, an order for issuance of warrant of attachment of the bank account of the appellant was made due to non compliance of the order dated 23.12.2020.

2. This order is impugned before us on the ground that vide this order, the State Commission had ordered the attachment of the entire money lying in the said bank account, which is causing inconvenience to the appellant since it is a salary account through which the appellant pays salary to its employees. It is also argued that Commission had no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the execution petition.

3. On behalf of the respondents, it is argued that he had filed execution for sum of Rs.43,77,914/- payable by the appellant till 01.09.2021 and this is the amount which needs to be recovered as the appellant had defaulted. It is submitted that impugned order can be modified to this effect that attachment should be issued only for this amount. It is submitted that what has been attached is a moveable property and there is no territorial restriction upon the State Commission for issuing warrant of attachment of moveable property. It is submitted that present Appeal has no merit and same be dismissed.

4. We have heard the arguments and perused the file. The admitted facts are that there is an executable order against the appellant and, therefore the respondents are entitled to file an execution application and the executing court is bound to take steps as per law for the recovery of the decretal amount. Pursuant to that, warrant of attachment of the moveable property i.e. bank account of the appellant had been issued. We are satisfied with the argument of the appellant that State Commission ought not to have attached the entire money lying in the said bank account but ought to have issued warrant of attachment of the specific amount, which is recoverable from the appellant. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that State Commission did not have territorial jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction to pass such an order is meritless.

5. While disposing of the present Appeal, we modify the impugned order to the following effect:

Vide said warrant of attachment a sum of Rs.43,77,914/-, the amount which the respondents have claimed in their execution petition be attached. The bank account details as given below should be attached upto the amount of Rs.43,77,914/-.

The bank shall not release this amount to the account holder without further directions of the State Commission.

6. With these directions, the present Execution Appeal stands disposed of.

7. Copy of this order be immediately served to the Bank. Parties to appear before the State Commission on date fixed for further directions.