The High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal by the original defendants who contested the attachment of movable and immovable properties during execution of an ex parte decree, holding they failed to establish ownership of the attached goods.
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORIGINAL SIDE
APPEAL NO.81 OF 1997
IN
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.949 OF 1995
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.229 OF 1991
Both of Bombay, Indian Inhabitants, residing at 37, Sea Queen, Juhu Road, Bombay 400 049. Appellants (original Defendant Nos.2 & 3).
vs. 1. Angelica M.Fernandes alias Angelica John Dias of Bombay Indian Inhabitant, residing at Akshaya Bldg., I.C.Colony, Respondent 3 x Road, Borivali(west), (original plaintiff) Bombay. 2. The Bombay House Projects Pvt.Ltd. a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Dadhich House, Opp.Station Santacruz(E), Bombay 400 055.
all of Bombay Hindu Inhabitant, residing at 37, Sea Queen, Juhu Road, Bombay 400 049. Respondents (original defendant nos. 1 & 4.)
Mr.Anis Kazi i/b.Mr.R.M.Tiwari for the appellants.
Mr.Manoj Dalvi i/b.M/s.Banatwala & Co. for the respondents.
CORAM : R.M. LODHA & D.G. KARNIK, JJ . DATED : 21st November 2005
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Lodha,J.).
Heard.
2
| 2. | On | 22.02.1993 an |
expa | rte decree |
came | to be |
passed | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| against | the | four defendants |
viz. | (1) |
The | Bombay | House | |
| Projects | Pvt.L | td., (2) |
Dr.Durgapras | ad | Shivdutt | Rai | ||
| Dadhich, | (3) | Dr.(Mrs) Ra |
ma | Durgaprasad | Dadhi | ch and |
(4) | |
| Lila | Shankar | Aesopa. | It | appears | that | the | present | |
| appellants | who | are defendants |
2 | and 3 |
took | out no |
tice | of |
| motion for | setting aside | the exparte decree. The | said | |||||
| notice of m | otion is repo | rted to have been dismis | sed. |
properties were attached:
| (i) furniture, |
fixtures and all |
ot | her | movable attachable |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| articles be |
longing to and in |
the | possess | ion of defendant |
| no.1 lying and being station, Santacruz (E), |
at Dadhich House, opposite Railway Bombay; |
|||
| (ii) fixtures |
and furnitures, T.V |
. | VCR | and all other |
| attachable | articles belonging to |
and |
in |
possession of |
| the defendant no.4 be | ing at 37, Sea Queen, Juhu Road, | |||
| Bombay 400 049; | ||||
| (iii) right, |
title and interest |
of | defendant | no.1 in |
| their ownership |
business premises |
and | lying | and being at |
| Dadhich House opp. | Railway Station Santacruz (E), | |||
| Bombay 400 055 and | ||||
| (iv) right, |
title and interest |
of | defendant | no.4 in his |
3
ownership residential premises lying and being and
situate at 37, Sea Queen, Juhu Road, Bombay 400049.
came to be dismissed by the learned chamber Judge on
December 13, 1996 giving rise to the present appeal.
to establish that the attached property belonged to
them.
| 6. | From the |
ava |
ilable mat |
erial, | it | is appar |
ent that the |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| registered | office | of |
the |
first | defend | ant-company | is at |
| the | Dadhich | House. | What | has | been | attached | under the |
| Warrant | of | Attac | hment in |
teralia | is | furniture, | fixtures |
| and | other m |
ovable | attachable | ar |
ticles | belonging | to and |
| in | the po |
ssession | of def |
endant | no.1-c | ompany | lying at |
| their | registered | office | and |
the | right, | title and |
|
| interest | of | the | defendant | no.1 | -company | in |
the ownership |
| business | premises | at |
the Da |
dhich | House. | Th |
e raising of |
| the | attachment | of | the said |
prop | erty a |
t the |
instance of |
the defendants 2 and 3 did not arise as the said
properties belonged to the first defendant.
4
| attached | und | er | th | e war |
rant | of |
attachm |
ent, | nothing | has |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| been | produced | by | the |
defendant | s | 2 | and 3 |
to | show | that the |
| said | movable | properties | belon | ged | to | them. | In | so |
far as |
|
| the | attachment | of re |
sidential | premis | es at |
37, | Sea | Queen, | ||
| Juhu | Road, | Bombay | is | con | cerned, | it is |
seen | from | the |
warrant of attachment that what has been attached is the
interest of the defendant no.4.
| 8. | In | the | a | foresaid | fact | situ | ation, | the | lea |
rned | Chamber |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Judge | cannot | be | said | to |
have | comm | itted | any | error | in | |
| observing | that | the | applican | ts-defen | dants | 2 | and | 3 | have |
failed to show that the attached property belonged to
them.
as to costs.
(R. M. LODHA, J.)
(D. G. KARNIK, J.)
Dr. Durgaprasad Shivdutt Rai Dadhich
Dr. (Mrs.) Rama Durgaprasad Dadhich
Angelica M. Fernandes alias Angelica John Dias
The Bombay House Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Lila Shankar Aesopa
R.M. Lodha
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
