IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO.22463/2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN :

MR NIMISH BHATIA

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

R/AT NO 1107, AVON

PRESTIGE KENSINGTON GARDEN

NO 17, HMT FACTORY ROAD

JALAHALLI

BENGALURU 560013

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SAHANA B V, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1 .

MR DEEPAK SHINDHE

S/O DR V S LOKANATH RAO SINDHE

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

R/AT NO 10, CASTLE STREET

ASHOKNAGAR, BENGALURU 560025

PRESENTLY IN NW JERSEY, USA

AND REP BY HIS OWNER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER

MR SUHAIL AHMED

S/O ABDUL KHYAUM SAB

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

RA/T NO 27, EAST STREET

NEELASANDRA

BENGALURU 560047

2

2.

FOUR FLAVOURS LLP

A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP

HAVING ITS REGISTRED OFFICE AT

NO 133/2, 4^TH FLOOR

JANARDHAN TOWERS

RESIDENCY ROAD

BENGALURU 560025

REP BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNERS

MR NIMISH BHATIA AND MR BRIJESH D K

... RESPONDENTS

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE

THE ORDER DTD.1.10.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE

EXECUTING

COURT

IN

EXECUTION

PETITION

NO.623/2019 (ANNXURE-A) ORDER BEING ISSUED XLII

ACC AND S.J. AT BENGLAURU ATTACHMENT WARRANT

OF MOVABLE OF JDR AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioner, who is one of the partners of a

Limited Liability Partnership (the second respondent)

and the judgment debtor in execution No.623/2019 on

the file of the XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions

judge, Bengaluru (for short, 'the executing Court'), has

impugned the executing Court's order dated 01.10.2021

issuing attachment warrant.

3

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the second respondent has placed on record before

the executing Court that the second respondent's

current registered address is in premise bearing

No.133/2, 4^th Floor, Janardhan Towers, Residency

Road, Bengaluru, and if any warrant would be issued it

must be only as against the movables of the second

respondent and the movables owned by one of the

partners of the limited liability firm cannot be attached.

But, the executing Court without considering the same

has issued warrant for attachment of movables.

The learned counsel further submits that the

bailiff, who wanted to execute the warrant at the

petitioner's residential premise, has filed a report with

the executing Court stating that the petitioner has

created a furore and therefore, he would need the

assistance of the local Police to execute the attachment

warrant. Consequentially, the decree holder (the first

4

respondent) has filed application for Police assistance

and this application is pending consideration.

In the light of the grounds urged and the

subsequent circumstance placed on record, this Court

is of the considered view that the petitioner must be at

liberty to contest the present application filed by the

first respondent for Police assistance relying upon the

grounds urged in the present petition and if such

grounds

are

urged,

the

executing

Court

must

necessarily pass orders after deciding on the same and

issuing clarification, if required.

The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid

observation.

SD/-

JUDGE

RB