Allowed

M/S. Gaur Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Krystal Stone Exports Ltd. and and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jan 2009N/2029/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed withdrawal of execution notice against three respondents with liberty to file a fresh notice. The court held that service on the judgment debtor was complete and the impugned order was executable under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC as the bestows decree-like effect.

What did the court decide?

Notice allowed to be withdrawn against Respondents 1 to 3 with liberty to file a fresh Notice; Notice made absolute against Respondent 6.

M/S. Gaur Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Krystal Stone… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

NOTICE NO. 2029 OF 2007 IN

¶4

COMPANY PETITION NO. 21 OF 2001

¶5

M/s. Gaur Securities Pvt.Ltd. ... Petitioner/ Decree Holder. V/s. M/s. Krystal Stone Exports Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents/ Judgment Debtor.

¶6

Mr. A.R. Bamne for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.

¶8

29TH JANUARY 2009.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

. At the request of Mr. Bamne, learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner/Decree Holder, the Notice is allowed to be withdrawn against Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 with liberty to file a fresh Notice.

¶11

As far as service on Respondent No.6 is concerned, it is clear from a perusal of the affidavit of service that the packet has been duly served. Thus, service is complete. 3. From a reading of the Notice and when I am satisfied that 2002 amendment to the Companies Act being not brought into effect, this Court will have jurisdiction to execute the orders passed by the Company Law Board, provided they are transmitted to this Court.

¶12

:2:

¶13

Since the order is transferred and is executable as

¶14

a dec	ree, Ord	er XXI Ru	le 22	of	the	C.P.C.	w	ould be
attracted,	if	conditions	set	out		therein	are	satisfied.
In the	instant	case, the orde	r of	the		Company	Law	Board is
dated	24th	June 2002	and	therefo	re,	the	condit	ions /
ingredients	of	Order XXI	Rule	22		are	attracted.	The
Notice	is duly	served. N	o c	ause	is	shown	despite	service.

¶15

None appears for Respondent No.6, Judgment Debtor. The

¶16

Notice is, therefore, made absolute.

¶17

(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)

M/S. Gaur Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Krystal Stone Exports Ltd. and and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Gaur Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Krystal Stone Exports Ltd. and and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India Vs Shyambahadur Vasudev Singh and Anr.

jal rustom aria Vs mrs zarinabai asgaali and Anr.

Maharashtra Pollution Control Board Vs Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Greater Bombay Co.Op. Bank Ltd. Vs M/S. Narendra Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Greater Mumbai Co-Operative Bank Vs M/S. Narendra Ispat P. Ltd. and Ors.