Allowed

M/S. Tirth Plastic Ltd. v. M. B. Pariklh Finstocks Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Dec 2009CHS/1939/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This chamber judgment disposed of an execution application regarding a money decree. The court allowed attachment of an additional fixed deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs, ruling that existing and new attachments cover the decretal amount, thereby granting the respondents' prayer to release other attached properties.

What did the court decide?

Attachment levied on an additional fixed deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/-; chamber summons made absolute to return other attached properties.

M/S. Tirth Plastic Ltd. Vs M. B. Pariklh Finstocks… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1939 OF 2009 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.460 OF 2009

¶3

IN SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT NO.288 OF 1998

¶4

Thirth Plastics Limited ...Applicants vs. M.B.Parikh Finstocks Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr.S.S.Pakale i/b Kirankumar J.Phakade for the applicant Mr.Chirag Balsara i/b Mr.Rohit Shetty for the Respondents

¶6

CORAM :A.S.OKA, J. DATE : DECEMBER 10, 2009

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1 Heard the learned counsel for the respondents in support of the chamber summons. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs who have filed the present execution application for executing a money decree passed in their favour by the Civil Court at Ahmedabad. The decree directs the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.25,01,500/- with interest thereon at the rate of 24% p.a. The decree has been transferred to this Court for execution. In the execution application, the claim under the decree is shown as Rs.90,84,990/- which includes the interest till the end of September 2009. In the execution, a claim is also made for recovery of a sum of Rs29,560/being the costs of the suit. The warrant of attachment was issued by this Court in execution application. The amount mentioned in the warrant of attachment is Rs.90,85,990/-. The attachment has been issued by this Court in respect of the bank accounts and fixed

¶9

¶10

deposits of the first respondent with Yes Bank Ltd as well as membership card of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited. The total amount of fixed deposits of the 1^st defendant with the Yes Bank Ltd subject matter of attachment is Rs. 82,26,000/-. In affidavit in support of the chamber summons, it is contended that the attachment of the fixed deposits is sufficient to take care of the decretal amount and hence, attachment relating to other property be vacated. The chamber summons is opposed by the petitioners.

¶11

2 The attention of the court is invited to the orders dated 4^th December 2009 and 7^th December 2009 passed by the Court which has passed the decree. The order dated 4^th December 2009 directs the petitioners to make attachment only to the extent of amount of Rs.90,85,050/- till the final disposal of miscellaneous civil application made by the respondents. Further order dated 7^th December 2009 directs that till the disposal of the civil miscellaneous application filed by the respondents, the petitioner should not withdraw the attached amount.

¶12

3 In the affidavit of the 2^nd respondent dated 5^th December 2009, reliance is placed on 3 documents at Exhibits 2,3 and 4. The first document shows that as of 4^th December 2009 , after tax deduction , interest accrued on fixed deposit of Rs.82,26,000/- is Rs.4,08,258/-. The letter at Exhibit-3 discloses that a further fixed deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been made by the 1^st respondent with the Yes Bank Ltd for a period of six month. The letter at Exhibit-4 shows that the

¶13

¶14

respondents have made request to the said bank for marking the lien of the Court on the said additional fixed deposit and that the said request has been noted by the said bank. I The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further states that the respondents have no objection even if the said fixed deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- is attached provided the other property is released from attachment.

¶15

4 If the said additional fixed deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/-is attached , as of 4^th December 2009, attachment will be of an amount which is more than Rs.91,00,000/-. Thus the attachment of the fixed deposits will cover the decretal amount of Rs. 90,85,050/-which is mentioned in the warrant of attachment. Considering the decretal amount claimed in the execution application and the amount set out in the attachment warrant , subject to further attachment of the fixed deposit of Rs.5,00,000/-, the prayer (a-II) of the chamber summons deserves to be granted.

¶16

6 Hence, the chamber summons is disposed of by passing the following order :

¶17

i) By consent, attachment be levied in respect of the fixed deposit of Rs.5,00,000/-(referred in letter dated 5th December 2009 of the Yes Bank Ltd) made by the 1^st respondent with Yes Bank Limited, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 053.

¶18

ii) Subject to observations made above, chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a-II).

¶19

¶20

iii) It is clarified that the attachment of the fixed deposits already made and further attachment made under this order will continue till further orders.

¶21

iv) The Sheriff and all concerned to act upon an authenticated

¶22

copy of this order.

¶23

JUDGE

M/S. Tirth Plastic Ltd. v. M. B. Pariklh Finstocks Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Tirth Plastic Ltd. v. M. B. Pariklh Finstocks Ltd. 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

Suryakant Narayan Velankar Vs Balasaheb Namdeo Jagtap and Others

Mah'Tra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt Tulasabai Babasaheb Sargar and Ors.

Mah'Tra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt Tulasabai Babasaheb Sargar and Ors.

M/S. Mepro Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Vanraj and Co. Pvt. Ltd.

H.B. Gohel Vs Vinod Kumar Bindlish and Ors.

L and T Finance Ltd. Vs Tukaram D. Gaikwad and Anr.