Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J
MS. SUMITA ABHISHEK SUNDARAM – Appellant
Versus
SANKALPAN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges jurisdiction regarding asset disclosure (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments from both parties regarding execution processes (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court emphasizes jurisdiction and asset availability for execution (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. execution rights upheld despite asset location changes (Para 14) |
CAV ORDER
The petitioner/decree-holder is before this Court calling in question an order dated 04-11-2024 passed by the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bangalore in Commercial Execution No.541 of 2024 by which the application I.A.No.III filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC seeking a direction to the respondent to file an affidavit of particulars of its assets including but not limited to immovable, movable properties, bank accounts with balance, stock holdings, deposits and other investments, garnishees of the respondent along with necessary statements of accounts reflecting its current assets.
2. Heard Sri Aditya Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
The petitioner and the
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
