Partly allowed

M/S Village People Restaurants LLP v. Shailender Singh HUF

Delhi HC25 Jan 2024EFA(OS)/10/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Holding the appeal against the order under which properties outside Delhi's jurisdiction were attached. Directing the respondent to approach the concerned court for execution of those specific properties while restraining the appellant's partners from creating third-party interests in them for a brief period.

What did the court decide?

The appeal disposed of; the attachment order varied to direct execution in the correct forum and to restrain appellant's partners from creating third-party interests in the specified properties until

M/S Village People Restaurants LLP Vs Shailender… — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- EFA(OS) 10/2023 & CM APPL. 27786/2023, CM APPL. 27787/2023, CM APPL. 27788/2023, CM APPL. 43806/2023

¶4

M/S VILLAGE PEOPLE RESTAURANTS LLP ..... Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr Vijay Kasana, Mr Kshitij Chhabra and Mr Chirag Verma, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

SHAILENDER SINGH HUF ..... Respondent

¶8

Through: Ms Smita Maan, Mr Vishal Maan and Mr Kartik Dabas, Advocates.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶10

O R D E R % 25.01.2024

¶11

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

¶12

This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.03.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in Execution Petition No. 37/2020.

¶13

The judgment debtor/appellant seeks to assail the aforementioned order passed by the learned Single Judge on two broad grounds:-

¶14

i. First, since the subject properties are located outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court, the same could not have been attached.

¶15

ii. Second, the subject properties being personal properties of the partners of the judgment debtor, without lifting the veil they could not have been subjected to coercive measures under the execution proceedings.

¶16

To be noted, the subject properties are described at paragraph 3 of the EFA(OS) 10/2023 Page 1 of 3

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2024 at 12:49:01

¶19

impugned order.

¶20

3.1 For convenience, the relevant portion of paragraph 3 of the impugned order, insofar as the description of the subject properties is concerned, is set forth hereafter:-

¶21

(i) 1/3^rd share in property No.E-8, Ravera Parm, Arpora, Goa [in short, “Goa Property”].

¶22

(ii) Khata Katauni No.225, Khasra No.103 Min. total 125.46 sq. meter and area 125.46 is built up in Mauza Mangol Panditwadi, Pargana Kendriyadun, District Dehradun, Uttarakhand [in short, “Uttarakhand Property”].

¶23

In the course of hearing, we asked counsel for the parties as to whether they would give their consent to the following directions that we intend to issue.

¶24

4.1 Counsel for the parties stated in no uncertain terms that the directions we intend to set forth will serve the interest of both parties, till such time a decision is taken by the concerned court with regard to the execution of the subject decree.

¶25

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of and the impugned order is varied to the extent indicated hereafter:

¶26

i. The respondent/decree holder will approach the concerned court with regard to the Goa and the Uttarakhand properties for the execution of the subject decree.

¶27

ii. The partners of the appellant/judgment debtor, i.e., Mr Arjun Yadav and Ms Sakshi Yadav will ensure that no third party interest is created in the Goa and the Uttarakhand properties till such time a decision is taken by the concerned Executing Court.

¶28

EFA(OS) 10/2023

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2024 at 12:49:01

¶31

iii. The respondent/decree holder will file appropriate applications for execution of the subject decree within the next eight (08) weeks.

¶32

In case applications are not filed within the time frame given hereinabove, the direction issued qua the partners of the appellant/judgment debtor, i.e., not to create third party interest in Goa and Uttarakhand properties will automatically stand dissolved.

¶33

Needless to add, the submission made before us on behalf of the appellant/judgment debtor that the Goa and the Uttarakhand properties cannot be brought within the sway of the execution proceedings insofar as the subject decree is concerned, is an aspect which the concerned court will consider, after giving opportunity to both sides.

¶34

Accordingly, pending applications shall stand closed.

¶35

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶36

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶37

JANUARY 25, 2024 at

¶38

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶39

EFA(OS) 10/2023

¶40

Page 3 of 3

¶41

M/S Village People Restaurants LLP v. Shailender Singh HUF

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Village People Restaurants LLP v. Shailender Singh HUF

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

Amarjeet Singh Bammi & Anr. Vs Master Fatehvir Singh (Minor) & Ors.

Anurag Singh Vs Priyanaka Tanwar

Gaurav Sahu Vs Simran Singh

Neetu Gulati Vs Kamal Kumar Gulati

Bs Mathur Vs High Court of Delhi and Anr.

Deepak Chhabra Vs Anil Goel & Ors.