2021 Supreme(Mad) 3378

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
M/s. Millenium Steel India Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director D. Hari Prasad Reddy, Chennai & Others – Appellant
Versus
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd., Haryana & Others – Respondent
Application Nos. 3605, 3606, 3923 of 2021 in C.S. Nos. 401, 403 & 303 of 2017 & E.P. No. 69 of 2018 in C.S. No. 950 of 2017
Decided On : 29-11-2021

The monies attached and deposited into the credit of the three suits pursuant to various orders of the Court continue to remain the property of the judgment debtor, held custodia legis, subject to the orders of the court. These funds, which remain the property of the judgment debtor, can therefore, be proceeded against and attached by third party creditors like the decree holder in E.P.No. 69 of 2018 under Section 60, CPC.

Headnote:

The Court held that the monies attached and deposited into the credit of the three suits pursuant to various orders of the Court continue to remain the property of the judgment debtor, held custodia legis, subject to the orders of the court. These funds, which remain the property of the judgment debtor, can therefore, be proceeded against and attached by third party creditors like the decree holder in E.P.No. 69 of 2018 under Section 60, CPC. In so far as the attaching creditors in Application Nos.3605, 3606 and 3923 of 2021 are concerned, since an order of attachment before judgment already operated in their suits, there is no requirement of re-attaching the same in view of the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 11 of the Code.

Fact of the Case:

The applicants in Application Nos. 3605, 3606 and 3923 of 2021 and the petitioner in E.P. No.69 of 2018 espouse a common cause. They have obtained a decree against a common defendant/judgment debtor, M/s. Ind Barath Thermal Power Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M/s. Ind Barath”). They now seek to realize their decretal dues by proceeding against the monies deposited into this Court by the garnishee. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the applications and the execution petition are as under:

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the decree holders in C.S.Nos.303 of 2017, 401 of 2017, and 403 of 2017 will, therefore, be entitled to rateable distribution of the monies along with the decree holder in E.P.No. 69 of 2018 in C.S.No.950 of 2017.

Issues: 1. Whether the monies attached and deposited into the credit of the three suits pursuant to various orders of the Court continue to remain the property of the judgment debtor? 2. Whether these funds can be proceeded against and attached by third party creditors like the decree holder in E.P.No. 69 of 2018 under Section 60, CPC? 3. Whether the attaching creditors in Application Nos.3605, 3606 and 3923 of 2021 are required to re-attach the same in view of the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 11 of the Code? 4. Whether the decree holders in C.S.Nos.303 of 2017, 401 of 2017, and 403 of 2017 are entitled to rateable distribution of the monies along with the decree holder in E.P.No. 69 of 2018 in C.S.No.950 of 2017?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the monies attached and deposited into the credit of the three suits pursuant to various orders of the Court continue to remain the property of the judgment debtor, held custodia legis, subject to the orders of the court. These funds, which remain the property of the judgment debtor, can therefore, be proceeded against and attached by third party creditors like the decree holder in E.P.No. 69 of 2018 under Section 60, CPC. 2. The Court held that in so far as the attaching creditors in Application Nos.3605, 3606 and 3923 of 2021 are concerned, since an order of attachment before judgment already operated in their suits, there is no requirement of re-attaching the same in view of the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 11 of the Code. 3. The Court held that the decree holders in C.S.Nos.303 of 2017, 401 of 2017, and 403 of 2017 will, therefore, be entitled to rateable distribution of the monies along with the decree holder in E.P.No. 69 of 2018 in C.S.No.950 of 2017.

Final Decision: The Court held that the decree holders in C.S.Nos.303 of 2017, 401 of 2017, and 403 of 2017 will, therefore, be entitled to rateable distribution of the monies along with the decree holder in E.P.No. 69 of 2018 in C.S.No.950 of 2017.