Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jaswant Singh, Sant Parkash, JJ.
Amit Katyal - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Chd Blueberry Realtech Pvt. Ltd., - Respondent
RFA-Com No. 02 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 28-09-2021
Court Fees Exemption - Execution Proceedings - Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Order 21 Rule 46 CPC - Garnishee Liability
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought exemption from payment of Court fees on the ground of not being a party before the Court below. The appellant was aggrieved by the order passed in execution proceedings initiated by the respondent under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent sought to restrain the Judgment Debtor from transferring its assets and impleaded the appellant as a garnishee to recover a decretal amount. The appellant contested the claim, stating that the alleged debt had been repaid and properties had been transferred to the Judgment Debtor to settle the remaining debt. The Court found the appellant liable for the debt and ordered attachment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the appellant liable for the debt and ordered attachment, holding the appellant and his wife as garnishees. The Court dismissed the appellant's application for additional evidence, stating that it did not satisfy the conditions for admission. The Court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding repayment of the debt and transfer of properties, citing lack of evidence and legal principles governing corporate entities. The Court also upheld its jurisdiction to hold the appellant as a garnishee and order deposit of the amount for satisfaction of the decree.
Issues: The issues included exemption from Court fees, liability of the appellant as a garnishee, repayment of the debt, and transfer of properties to settle the debt.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to support the appellant's claims, the legal principles governing corporate entities, and the provisions of Order 21 Rule 46 CPC empowering the Court to attach a debt and hold a garnishee liable.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld. The Court also noted that the issues regarding the appellant's wife's liability were pending in a separate petition.
ORDER
Jaswant Singh, J. -
CA-Misc. No. 9-RFCOM of 2021
1. The instant application has been filed by the appellant - Amit Katyal seeking exemption from payment of Court fees on the ground that since he was not a party before the Court below, therefore, no ad valorem Court fee is required to be paid by him.
Application is allowed, as prayed for. Exemption from payment of Court fees is granted.
MAIN CASE
The appellant-Amit Katyal is aggrieved of the order dated 05.03.2021 passed by Ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram in Execution No.22 (Date of Institution : 17.10.2017) titled as M/s CHD Blueberry Realtech Private Limited V/S M/s Iceberg Developers Private Limited.
2. The brief facts of the instant case are that M/s CHD Blueberry Real tech Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Blueberry") / respondent No.1 / Decree Holder initiated proceedings against M/s Iceberg Developers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Iceberg") / respondent No. 2 / Judgment Debtor under the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended upto date) (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1996") for adjudication of its claim. This led to passing of an Award dated 18.03.2016 in favour of Blueberry / Decree Holder and against Iceberg-Judgment Debtor. Decree Holder filed an execution petition, for recovery of the decretal amount being Rs. 82,05,34,944/- including interest calculated upto 20.01.2018, consequent upon failure of Judgment Debtor to remit the same within three (03) months.
3. On issuance of notice in the execution petition Iceberg- Judgment Debtor (respondent No. 2) appeared, but did not make the payment. Blueberry-Decree Holder (respondent No. 1) moved an application seeking to restrain the Judgment Debtor from transferring its assets on 20.03.2018. An application under Order 21 Rule 41 CPC for seeking directions to Judgment Debtor to disclose the assets, was also moved on 21.03.2018. Reply of the same was filed by the Judgment Debtor / respondent No.2 on 16.04.2018. Consequently, a restraint order against the Iceberg-Judgment Debtor-Respondent No.2 was passed from transferring its assets on 29.05.2018.
4. During the execution proceedings, Decree Holder respondent No.1 came to know that as per the balance sheet of Judgment Debtor-respondent No.2 as on 31.03.2016, an amount of Rs. 22,51,64,435/- and Rs.1,50,00,000/- had been transferred to Amit Katyal and Deepti Katyal respectively, which was yet to be repaid. Decree Holder - respondent No. 1, therefore, sought to implead the Appellant (Amit Katyal) and Deepti Katyal, in the capacity of garnishee, to recover the decretal amount on account of the aforesaid amounts liable to be repaid by the garnishees to respondent No. 2 / Judgment Debtor in terms of Order 21 Rule 46 CPC.
5. The case set up by Blueberry / Decree-holder before the Court below was that M/s Iceberg Developers Private Limited / Judgment Debtor is owned by M/s Krrish Realtech Private Limited to the extent of 99%, and 100% shares of which are owned by the Amit Katyal-appellant herein and his family. It was urged by respondent No.1 that the appellant alongwith his wife Deepti Katyal were the Directors of the Judgment Debtor / respondent No. 2 at the time of entering into the Agreement in dispute with respondent No. 1 / Decree Holder. However, subsequently, realizing that arbitral Award is likely to be passed against Iceberg - respondent No.2, both Amit and Deepti Katyal resigned as Directors of respondent No.2-Company.
6. Further, as per the balance sheet of Judgment Debtor / respondent No.2 as on 31.03.2016, an amount of Rs.22,51,64,435/- had been shown to have been transferred to Amit Katyal and Rs. 1,50,00,000/-was transferred by the Judgment Debtor / respondent No.2-Company to Deepti Katyal as a debt. Decree Holder / respondent No.1 contended that the aforesaid debt, is liable to be attached under Order 21 Rule 46 CPC as appellant and Deepti Katyal, are ga
AI
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
