Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Vipin Sanghi, J.
Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited —Decree Holder
versus
M/s Western Express (Services) —Judgment Debtor
EX.P. 252 of 2006
Decided on 12.2.2016
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Decree Holder:Mr. Nikhilesh Krishna, Advocate
For the Judgment Debtor:Mr. Dalpreet Singh, Advocate with Mr. Krishan Kumar Nareda, proprietor of the Judgment Debtor in person
IMPORTANT POINT
Defiant attitude of judgment-debtor may invite civil imprisonment of judgment-debtor.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order XXI Rules 30, 41(3) read with Sections 51, 55, 58 and 151—Civil imprisonment of judgment-debtor—Defiant attitude of judgment-debtor—Execution petition has been pending for over nine years during which period petition has been listed dozens of time before Court—With great difficulty decree holder has been able to recover only Rs.1 Lakh towards partial satisfaction of decree—Amount outstanding under decree, as on date, is over Rs.50 Lakhs—Even though dictation of this order has proceeded on two dates, judgment debtor has exhibited stubbornness and even during recording of this order he has not come forward to show colour of his money—Present is an imminently fit case to direct civil imprisonment of judgment debtor, looking to his entire conduct—Judgment debtor directed to be placed in civil imprisonment for a period of three months or for such shorter period within which payment of decretal amount is made to decree holder in respect whereof warrants are hereby issued. (Paras 45 and 47)
Result: Application allowed.
Ex.Appln. (OS) No. 1123/2015
Vipin Sanghi, J.—This application has been preferred by the decree holder under Order XXI Rules 30, 41(3) read with Sections 51, 55, 58 and 151 CPC. The decree holder, by this application, seeks that the judgment debtor – K.K.Nareda, be sent to civil imprisonment.
2. The background facts are that the decree holder filed a civil suit being CS(OS) No. 1938/2001 for recovery of Rs. 28,87,490.57/-. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant was appointed as their clearing and forwarding agent vide letter dated 23.12.1997. The claim arose on account of the defendant not delivering the goods to the plaintiff. The defendant did not appear to contest the suit despite service of summons and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.12.2003. The plaintiff led ex parte evidence of Mr. Dinkar Prakash Bhardwaj, Senior Accountant of the plaintiff at its Delhi office. After giving adjustment to the amount of bank guarantee and other permissible amounts, the amount recoverable from the defendant was stated to be Rs. 15,79,302.57/-. Besides the said amount, the defendant was also found liable to pay interest of Rs. 13,08,188/-. Resultantly, the court passed a decree for Rs. 28,87,490.57/- against the defendant with costs and pendente lite and future interest @ 15 % per annum till realization.
3. The decree holder instituted the present execution petition in November, 2006. Despite service, the judgment debtor did not appear and, consequently, bailable warrants were issued on 30.05.2007. Despite service of bailable warrants, the judgment debtor did not appear on 25.03.2008 on the ground that he was held up at Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. Ultimately, the judgment debtor appeared only on 09.05.2008. He was then directed to file a list of his movable and immovable assets standing in his name.
4. On 03.10.2008, the judgment debtor made a disclosure of his three bank accounts and about his owning an Indica Car of 2005 model which was stated to be hypothecated with HDFC Bank, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. The banker was directed not to release the papers of the Car without intimation to the Court. The judgment debtor informed that he had joined services of Innovative B2B Logistics Solutions Ltd., as G.M. (Domestic Business Development) and is drawing a salary of Rs. 48,000/- per month. He stated that he would deposit in this Court 33% of his salary on the 10th of every month. He stated that he would make the deposit without prejudice to his contentions and right to seek setting aside of ex parte decree. I may observe that neither the said 33% of the salary was ever deposited by the judgment debtor, nor did he seek the setting aside of the ex parte decree against him. He also did not prefer a Regular First Appeal to assail the ex-parte judgment and decree.
5. The judgment debtor did not appear when the matter was taken up on 27.11.2008 and, consequently, once again bailable warrants were issued for his production. However, the judgment debtor did not appear on the next date i.e. on 21.01.2009. His salary was attached by issuing notice to his employer B2B Logistics Solutions Ltd.. Once again, bailable warrants were issued for his production.
6. He appeared on the next date, i.e., 28.04.2009. On that date, he gave his current residential address which was stated to be on monthly rent of Rs. 11,000/-. He stated that the premises was taken on rent since September, 2008 and the rent was being paid in cash. He was asked to produce before the Court the rent agreement and rent receipts within a week.
7. The judgment debtor did not, once again, appear before the Court on 11.05.2009 and, consequently, bailable warrants were issued for his production. Warrants of attachment in respect of the Indica Car owned by the judgment debtor was also issued, returnable on 22.07.2009. On 22.07.2009, the judgment debtor appeared in response to the warrants issued against him. It was again informed to the Court that the Car was hypothec
