Dismissed

Union of India v. M/S Western India Construiction Co. and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jul 2013APP/400/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Bombay Bench dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a Chamber Summons. The Court held that under Order 21 Rule 50 CPC, liability of a disputing partner must be adjudicated without impleading a third-party donee, especially when the partner is alive.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Chamber Summons under Order 21 Rule 50 CPC was rejected as it had no merit.

Union of India Vs M/S Western India Construiction… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

VBC 1/2 appl827.12-15.7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J.

¶3

APPEAL (L) NO.827 OF 2011 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1351 OF 2010 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1868 OF 2007 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO.324 OF 2007 IN

¶4

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.5 OF 1998

¶5

Union of India through the Chief Engineer, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre.

¶6

Vs. M/s.Western India Construction Co.Ltd. & Ors.

¶7

...Appellant.

¶8

...Respondents.

¶9

.... Ms.S.I.Shah with Mr.A.R.Verma for the Appellant. Ms.T.Dalvi for Respondent No.2

¶10

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND

S.C.GUPTE, JJ.

July 15, 2013 .

P.C. :

On the delay being condoned, the appeal has been taken on Board by consent and has been called out for admission.

¶15

An arbitral award has been sought to be executed by the Union of India. The award was against a partnership, the First Respondent, and is sought to be executed against the partners of the firm. The Second Respondent disputed her liability as partner and in the circumstances, an order was passed by the Learned Single Judge on 21 November 2009 in the course of the execution proceedings directing that an enquiry would have to be held for determining her liability in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 50 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the course of the enquiry under Order 21 Rule 50, a Chamber Summons was taken out by the Appellant seeking leave under Order 21 Rule 50 to proceed against the Seventh Respondent in his individual capacity “as the legal heir” of the

¶16

VBC 2/2 appl827.12-15.7

¶17

Second Respondent for the execution of the award dated 18 January 1996. The Learned Single Judge has dismissed the Chamber Summons.

¶18

First and foremost, there is no occasion for the Appellant to seek leave under Order 21 Rule 50 for the execution of the award against the Seventh Respondent who is the donee of fifty percent of the undivided right, title and interest in the residential flat in his capacity as the legal heir of the Second Respondent. As a matter of fact, the Second Respondent is alive. But that apart, and secondly, in an enquiry under Order 21 Rule 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where a person disputes his liability as a partner, the executing Court may order that the liability of such a person be tried and determined in any manner in which any issue in a suit may be tried and determined. Consequently, in a proceeding under Order 21 Rule 50, it is the liability of the Second Respondent which has to be adjudicated upon and decided. There is absolutely no occasion in the course of such a proceeding to implead a third party to whom the property was transferred by the Second Respondent. In the circumstances, the Chamber Summons as filed under Order 21 Rule 50 was rightly rejected by the Learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)

Union of India v. M/S Western India Construiction Co. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. M/S Western India Construiction Co. 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

Smt. Sandhya Shsekar Pavaskar Vs Shri Sunil Shantaram Kadam

Dia Deb International Vs M/S. Krishna Gems

Dilip Venilal Maniar Vs Rameshbhai Venilal Maniar and 3 Ors.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs Dolchand Kallaji

Mr. Mir Mozam Ali Vs Parnika Chandrashekhar Shelar @ Parnika Sachin Shinde, and Anr.

Abhiyan Land Developers Private Limited. Vs Munna R. Puthalappa