Deepak Sampat Vs Rajendra Danthi and Ors. and Sandhya R. Danthi

¶1

6-CHS942-11.DOC

¶2

Arun

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMON NO. 942 OF 2011

¶4

IN

¶5

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 209 OF 2011

¶6

IN

¶7

SUIT NO. 2998 OF 2009

¶8

Deepak Y Sampat…Plaintiff
Versus
Rajendra Danthi & Ors…Defendants
And
Sandhya R Danthi…Applicant

¶9

Mr CK Tripathi, for the Plaintiff.
Mr R Narula, i/b Ramesh Jain, for Applicant in Chamber Summons
No.942 of 2011.

¶10

Mr Anirudh Hariani, with Sukhada Wagle Kamat, i/b Hariani &
Company, for Applicant in Chamber Summons No.1177 of 2011.

¶11

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 27th February 2018

¶12

PC:-

¶13

1.The Chamber Summons is filed by one Sandhya R Danthi.
She is the husband of the 1st Defendant, Rajendra Danthi. She seeks
to raise attachments of movables and immovables levied on Danti
Resident, Shankar Niwas, Dr Dalvi Road, Kandivali (West),
Mumbai 400 067.

¶14

Page 1 of 4
27th February 2018

¶15

6-CHS942-11.DOC

¶16

2.In the Affidavit in Support she says that she is not concerned
with the Suit and that the Sheriff has attached the property despite
it being pointed out that she is the absolute owner of the property.

¶17

3.Apart from anything else, the entire attachment proceeding is
itself not maintainable. In fact, the continuance of the attachment is
a gross abuse of the process of the Court. This is why: the Suit is of
2009. There was a Consent Decree of 22nd March 2010. It seems
that Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 i.e. Sandhya’s husband, Rajendra,
one Asha Matani, and the 4th Defendant partnership firm filed a
Chamber Summons seeking that they may permitted to pay an
amount of Rs.17,50,000/- to the Plaintiff in full and final settlement
of the Consent Decree and, further, that the Consent Decree be
marked fully satisfied. Here are the prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) of
the Chamber Summons No.768 of 2011.

¶18

(a)That the Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 be allow to pay
to the Plaintiff an amount of Rs.17,50,000/- and/or
permitted to deposit with this Hon’ble Court towards full
and final payment pursuant to Consent Decree dated 22nd
March 2010 Annexure “A” to the Affidavit in Support.

¶19

(b)Prothonotary and Senior Master to records the
Decree marked fully satisfied against Defendants Nos. 1, 2
and 4 in the above Suit.

¶20

(c)That the attachment levied on the property i.e. Plot
No. 109 (Part) Village Erangle, Malad (West), Mumbai, be
raised, revoked/rescinded/set aside and be declared to be
null and void and of no consequence whatsoever.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

27th February 2018

¶23

6-CHS942-11.DOC

¶24

4.This Chamber Summons was made absolute on 5th May
2011, specifically in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c). Liberty was
reserved to proceed in terms of clauses 5 and 6 of the Consent
Terms. The order of SJ Kathawalla J of 5th May 2011 reads thus :

¶25

1.The learned advocate appearing for the
Defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 has handed over a pay order
of Rs.17,15,000/- towards principal amount and a
cheque of Rs.2,07,123/- towards interest @ 15% p.a. On
the delayed instalments aggregating to Rs.17,15,000/-
to the learned advocate for the Plaintiff. The learned
advocate for the Plaintiff tenders original documents to the
learned advocate for Defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4. In view
thereof, the Chamber Summons is allowed in terms of
prayer clauses (b) and (c). However, it is clarified that this
order shall not preclude the Plaintiff from taking out any
proceedings for implementation of clauses (5) and (6) of the
consent terms which if taken out shall be decided on its
own merits. The Chamber Summons is accordingly
disposed of.

¶26

(Emphasis added)

¶27

5.Thereafter, on 11th July 2011, the Prothonotary and Senior
Master marked the decree fully satisfied in terms of Kathawalla J’s
order.

¶28

6.Clauses (5) and (6) of the Consent Terms do not affect
Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4. They are separate undertakings by other
Defendants referencing letters of 15th February 2010 and 15th
March 2010 to pay certain amounts in four instalments. Clause (6)
speaks of receipt of an amount of Rs.17,50,000/-.

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

27th February 2018

¶31

6-CHS942-11.DOC

¶32

7.As far as Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are concerned, therefore,
the Consent Decree against them was fully satisfied upon the order
being made by Kathawalla J on 5th May 2011. No attachment in
execution could possibly continued in execution of that Consent
Decree.

¶33

8.I find from Exhibit A to the Affidavit in Support of the
present Chamber Summons that the execution that is sought to be
continued is specifically with reference to the Consent Decree dated
22nd March 2010 (pages 10-11 and 14-15 of the Affidavit in Support
of the Chamber Summons). This means that the Plaintiff is illicitly
purporting to continue in execution of a Decree that has been
marked full satisfied. Not only that, but what is sought to be taken in
purported execution is the property of a person who is not a
Judgment Debtor at all.

¶34

9.The Chamber Summons will have to be allowed. It is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶35

10.In addition, all attachments levied pursuant to the Consent
Decree dated 22nd March 2010 on any property or assets of the
Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 will have to be raised and are hereby
raised and set aside.

¶36

(G. S. PATEL, J)

¶37

Page 4 of 4
27th February 2018

Deepak Sampat v. Rajendra Danthi and Ors. and Sandhya R. Danthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Sampat v. Rajendra Danthi and Ors. and Sandhya R. Danthi

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

M/S. Vandana Enterprises Vs M/S. Avesh Developers and Contractors and 2 Ors.

Ajab Real Estate Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Nidhaan Infracon Pvt. Ltd.) Vs M/S. Avesh Developers and Contractors and 3 Others

Ram Hukum Textiles (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India and Another

Shah Steel Corporation Vs Pavan Structurals Private Limited.

Prasan Kapoor and 14 Ors. Vs Jaycee Homes Pvt. Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Sudha Jayashankar W/O. Madhavan Jayasankar and Anr. Vs Jayasankar Madhavan S/O Madhavan Jayaraman (Deceased)