Allowed

Pushp Holdings Ltd. v. M/S. Rhea Arts and 4 Ors. and Kusum Jitendra Nirula (Applicant)

Bombay HC6 Mar 2017CHS/1676/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of two chamber summonses challenging execution proceedings. It held that the residential flat attached by the decree-holder did not belong to the 4th defendant/applicants. The attachment of the flat and movables was vacated, prohibiting further execution against them, while liberty was granted to proceed against the 4th defendant's personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Attachment of Flat Nos. 803/804 and movables was vacated. No further execution against these flats or furniture allowed. Decree-holder may proceed against 4th defendant's personal assets.

Pushp Holdings Ltd. Vs M/S. Rhea Arts and 4 Ors. and… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

8-CHS341-14+.DOC

¶2

ATUL

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 341 OF 2014

¶4

IN

¶5

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 421 OF 2011

¶6

IN

¶7

SUIT NO. 279 OF 2005

¶8

…Plaintiff

¶9

Pushp Holdings Ltd…Plaintiff
Versus
Rhea Arts & Ors…Defendants
And
Jitendra M Nirula & Anr...Applicants

¶10

WITH

¶11

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1676 OF 2015
IN
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 341 OF 2014
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 421 OF 2011
IN
SUIT NO. 279 OF 2005

¶12

Pushp Holdings Ltd…Plaintiff
Versus
Rhea Arts & Ors…Defendants
And
Kusum Jitendra Nirula ...Applicant

¶13

Mr Amogh Singh, with Pavan S Patil, for the Applicant in both the

¶14

Page 1 of 4
6th March 2017

¶15

8-CHS341-14+.DOC

¶16

Chamber Summonses.

¶17

Ms Mamta Sadh, i/b Sudhakar Lakhani, for the Plaintiff/Decree
Holder.

¶18

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:6th March 2017

¶19

PC:-

¶20

1.Chamber Summons No. 341 of 2014 is filed by Jitendra and
Kusum Nirula, the parents of the 4th Defendant, Manish Nirula.
The Applicants say that the Plaintiff–Decree Holder in execution of
the decree dated 18th February 2005 in Suit No. 279 of 2005
wrongly attached their residential premises at 803/804, Belscot
Towers, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053
and various movables in that flat.

¶21

2.This Chamber Summons is supported by an Affidavit by
Jitendra. He said Kusum and he first purchased Flat Nos. 703/704
in 1986 in that building. They then decided to exchange these two
flats with Flat Nos. 803/804 previously owned by Ashok Goel and
his wife Nita Goel. Paragraph 5 of that Affidavit says Jitendra and
Kusum were thus the joint owners of these flats. This statement is
somewhat inaccurate. The annexures to this Affidavit show there
were two flats, and Jitendra and Kusum held one flat each, though
these seem to have been combined into a single unit.

¶22

3.Jitendra Nirula died on 23rd September 2015 while these
applications were pending. His widow Kusum then filed second
Chamber Summons No. 1656 of 2015 to amend the earlier Chamber

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

6th March 2017

¶25

8-CHS341-14+.DOC

¶26

Summons. Here she says that Jitendra gifted his flat to her by a
registered Gift Deed dated 21st May 2007. Why this does not find
mention in Jitendra’s Affidavit in Support of the first Chamber
Summons is unexplained and, evidently, is something that we will
never know.

¶27

4.Given the facts of the case, and since it is obvious that the 4th
Defendant had no right, title and interest in the property attached, I
believe I must allow the first Chamber Summons fully, although
perhaps the correct thing to do is to first allow the second Chamber
Summons directing amendment of the first Chamber Summons and
then allow the first Chamber Summons. In either case, it makes no
difference.

¶28

5.The two Chamber Summonses are disposed of by the
following order:

¶29

(a) The attachment levied in respect of Flat Nos. 803/804 is vacated and raised as is the attachment on the movables therein;

¶30

(b) No further execution proceedings are to take place in respect of these flats or the furniture and fittings in that flats;

¶31

6.It is however clarified that the Plaintiff is at liberty to proceed
against the 4th Defendant in respect of his personal assets including
any part of his late father’s estate that may have come to his hands.

¶32

Page 3 of 4
6th March 2017

¶33

8-CHS341-14+.DOC

¶34

7. Both the Chambers Summonses are disposed of in these terms with no order as to costs.

¶35

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶36

Page 4 of 4
6th March 2017

Pushp Holdings Ltd. v. M/S. Rhea Arts and 4 Ors. and Kusum Jitendra Nirula (Applicant)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushp Holdings Ltd. v. M/S. Rhea Arts and 4 Ors. and Kusum Jitendra Nirula (Applicant)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hasanrao Shankarrao Deshmukh and Anr. Vs Monsanto Technology Llc and Anr.

Shaila Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Dudh Mahasangh Maryadit

General Insurance Corporation of India Vs H.T.Media Ltd.

Shaikh Habibunnisa G Rehman Vs Aafiyah Realtors

Gastro Pub Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sachindra K. Shetty

Sharvan Kishanlal Bishnoi Vs M/S Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.