2026:BHC-OS:2870 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7784 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2023 SUNITA ISHWAR SAMOTA & ANR )…APPLICANTS IN THE MATTER BETWEEN SANMAN TRADE IMPEX PVT LTD )…CLAIMANT /

DECREE HOLDER V/s.

BABA MUNGIPA STEEL INDUSTRY AND )

OTHERS )…RESPONDENTS Mr.Ryan D’Souza a/w Mr.Shivam Laturiya, Ms.Pranchali Kandre i/b APS Law Associates, Advocates for the Applicants.

Mr.Vivek Kantawala a/w Mr.Amey Patil, Mr.Manav Kantawala i/b M/s.

Vivek Kantawala and Co., Advocates for the Claimant/Decree Holder.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.

RESERVED ON : 19^th JANUARY 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 30^th JANUARY 2026 ORDER :

1. This Interim Application filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the “CPC”) by the wife and the son of Judgment Debtor No.3 seeks to exclude Flat No.203, A-Wing, 2^nd Floor, Silver Birch Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Vasant Gardens, Swapna Nagari, Mulund West, Mumbai 400080 (the “said flat”) from the schedule of properties in the Execution Application No.30 of 2023 attached pursuant to a Warrant of Attachment dated 1^st February 2024 and to set aside the said Warrant of Attachment as well as the Proclamation of Sale dated 15^th July 2025 insofar as it concerns the said flat.

2. Mr. D’Souza, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants, has submitted that earlier the Claimant/Decree holder had filed a Commercial Summary Suit No.153 of 2015 against Baba Mungipa Steel Industry Pvt. Ltd. and its directors and the Respondent No. 3 was one of the two directors against whom the Suit was filed. The Commercial Summary Suit culminated into a decree dated 30^th July 2018 pursuant to order passed in Summons for Judgment No.39 of 2018 and the present Execution Application filed on 19^th September 2019 seeks execution of the said decree against the Respondents.

3. That, on 9^th March 2020, out of love and affection the Respondent/Defendant No.3 had executed registered Gift deed in favour of his wife, the Applicant No.1 and his son the Applicant No.2 who became the joint owners of the said flat. It is submitted that in the course of the execution proceedings a Warrant of Attachment dated 1^st February 2024 attaching the said flat was issued, pursuant to which the said flat was attached, after which on 10^th March 2025, which is more than a year after the attachment, a warrant of sale was issued and on 19^th March 2025 the warrant of sale was lodged for issuance of proclamation of sale and the proclamation of sale was issued in May

2025.

4. On 30^th June 2025, when an objection was taken to the proclamation of sale on the ground that there was a Gift deed in favour of the Applicants, the Commissioner for taking Accounts observed that the title could not be decided finally and only included the Applicants’ claim in the Proclamation of Sale list. The proclamation of sale was settled formally on 15^th July 2025 with a note about the Applicants’ claim. It is submitted that, thereafter, on 1^st October 2025, this application under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC has been filed.

5. Mr. D’Souza has submitted that the Interim Application seeking to exclude the said flat from the schedule of attached properties deserves to be allowed on two grounds. Firstly Mr. D’Souza has submitted that the claim in the Summary Suit was for payment of invoices raised upon the Defendant No.1 company and although in the demand notice as well as in the Suit the Defendant No.3 along with the Defendant No.2 were arrayed but only as directors and not personally or as guarantors. Mr. D’Souza submitted that the property of a director cannot be sold to satisfy a decree against the company as the company is a separate legal entity, unless the directors are specifically held liable by an order of the Court.

6. That in the present case the Respondent no.3/Defendant No. 3 was impleaded in his capacity only as a director and not in his personal capacity. Mr. D’Souza has submitted t