Dismissed

Padu Wadhwani v. Mid East I Ltd.

Delhi HC15 Nov 2016EX.P./110/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner's execution petition was dismissed as non-prosecution. No application was made for its revival despite the registry's own listing. Lanqagel counsel were failures to obtain status of the judgment-debtors or instructions for revival. The petition was dismissed without costs. No citation to precedent.

What did the court decide?

Execution petition dismissed for non-prosecution against judgment debtors.

Padu Wadhwani Vs Mid East I Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- EX.P. 110/2005 & EA No.604/2006 (under Section 22 of SICA) PADU WADHWANI ..... Decree Holder

¶4

Through: Mr. Sudipto Sircar & Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Advs.

¶5

Versus

¶6

MID EAST (I) LTD. & ORS. ..... Judgement Debtors Through: Ms. Kavita Batra, Adv.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 15.11.2016

¶10

Neither the counsel for the decree-holder Ms. Padu Wadhwani nor the counsel for all the four judgment-debtors know anything about the case.

¶11

A perusal of the file shows that execution is sought of the decree dated 19^th November, 1998 of the High Court at Bombay in favour of decree-holder and against the judgment-debtors jointly and severally of recovery of money.

¶12

Notice of the execution petition was issued to the judgment-debtors.

¶13

EA No.604/2006 was filed by the judgment-debtors under Section 22 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. On 19^th August, 2010 both counsels stated that the execution petition may be adjourned sine die in view of the “matter regarding revival is pending before the AAIFR.” Accordingly, the execution petition was adjourned sine die with liberty to the parties to revive the same.

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

EX.P. 110/2005

¶16

Neither party applied for revival of the execution petition and the Registry of this Court of its own listed the execution petition on 10^th December, 2015 when upon issuance of the court notice, the counsels have been appearing but taking adjournments to obtain instructions.

¶17

Neither counsel has any idea of the status of the judgment-debtors. It is also inexplicable as to why, if the decree was joint and several besides against the judgment-debtor no.1 also against the judgment-debtors nos.2 to 4 viz. Mrs. Rita Singh, Mr. J.K. Singh and Ms. Natasha Singh, execution is not sought to be proceeded against them.

¶18

It appears that the decree-holder is not interested.

¶19

Dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶20

No costs.

¶21

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

¶22

NOVEMBER 15, 2016 „gsr‟..

¶23

Page 2 of 2

¶24

EX.P. 110/2005

Padu Wadhwani v. Mid East I Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padu Wadhwani v. Mid East I Ltd.

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

Sh. Rame and Ors. Vs Dhanpal and Ors.

Omega Ag Seeds (Punjab) Ltd. & Anr. Vs Mauve & Crimson Advertising Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Five Star Electricals (India) and Anr.

Asha Lata Gupta Vs the State

Master Akash Vs Sh. Anil Kumar and Others

Vandana Batra Vs Aerens Goldsouk International Limited