Allowed

Achutha Institute of Technology v. M/S Flow & Force Engineers

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2024WP/31479/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an order attaching movables of the petitioner, which the lower court deemed connected to the judgment debtor. The High Court set aside the order, finding insufficient basis for the assumed connection without explicit admission, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration and evidence.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order dated 01.06.2019 and remanded the matter to the Court below for fresh consideration allowing both parties to adduce evidence.

Achutha Institute of Technology Vs M/S Flow… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:19913 WP No. 31479 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 31479 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ACHUTHA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, GOPALAPURA, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, PIN NO:560 129. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. G. NARASI REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. THANUJA M.V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

M/S FLOW & FORCE ENGINEERS, NO.35, NEW TIMBER YARD LAYOUT, AVALAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI S.V. SHIVANNA.

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL, ACHUTHA INSTITUTIONAL OF TECHNOLOGY, SURVEY NO.115, BOMMANAHALLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA -561 209.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. N. MANOHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19913 WP No. 31479 of 2019

¶19

ORDER DATED 01.06.2019 PASSED ON IA.NO.II FILED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC OF THE LEARNED XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU [CCH-32] IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.2301/2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.2 on the file of the XX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Ex.P.No.2301/2016, dated 01.06.2019, the obstructer is before this Court.

¶23

Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff in the suit. He has filed O.S.No.3981/2014 for recovery of money, the same was decreed on 06.06.2016. Thereafter, the decree holder had filed the petition seeking attachment of the movables of the judgment debtor. The petitioner had obstructed the same stating that the property does not belong to the decree holder and the said property cannot be attached. The Court below considering the said stand taken by the obstructer, had passed this Order wherein the Court had observed that the obstructer is the sister concern of the judgment debtor. Further, it also an admitted fact that the management of the obstructer institution and the judgment debtor institution are one and the same.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19913 WP No. 31479 of 2019

¶25

When the obstructer is the sister concern of judgment debtor, her belongings also becomes the belongings of the judgment debtor. Accordingly, allowed the Petition.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ obstructer submits that the Court below had observed that they have admitted the fact that both the obstructer and the judgment debtor firms are the sister concern which is contrary to the objections filed by him and he has submitted that the Court below without any basis had observed that it is an admitted fact. It is further submitted that infact they are denying the fact that the judgment debtor has any connection with the obstructer college. It is submitted that the said order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that both the institutions are one and the same. It is the same management, only to frustrate the decree the obstructer has come up with such a plea. It is further submitted that the Court below had rightly passed the Order. The petitioner had obtained the stay order and till now they could not enjoy the fruits of decree.

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19913 WP No. 31479 of 2019

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material placed on record. According to the decree holder, the obstructer and the judgment debtor are the partners of the institutions and both the institutions are the sister concerns. It is the case of the obstructer that the judgment debtor has nothing to do with the Bangalore institution where the attachment order is passed. The Court below had observed that it is an admitted fact and this Court had perused the objections. In that, nowhere they have admitted the same.

¶30

Considering all these, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside this Order and remand the matter to the Court below and before the Court below the obstructer as well as the judgment debtor are at liberty to adduce the evidence with regard to the connection between judgment debtor and the obstructer’s institution. Accordingly, the impugned order in I.A.No.2 in Ex.P.No.2301/2016 dated 01.06.2019 passed by the XX Addl. City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court below.

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:19913 WP No. 31479 of 2019

¶32

¶33

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is ‘ allowed ’ by setting aside the order dated 01.06.2019 and the matter is remanded to the Court below for fresh consideration.

¶34

Both the parties shall appear before the Court below on 19.06.2024.

¶35

Both the parties are at liberty to adduce the evidence.

¶36

Within two months from 19.06.2024, the Court

¶37

below shall dispose of the petitions.

¶38

Pending I.As if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Achutha Institute of Technology v. M/S Flow & Force Engineers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Achutha Institute of Technology v. M/S Flow & Force Engineers

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

Suresh Babu B Vs Kavitha a

Sri. Anand. G Vs Smt. Vatsala Y @ Vatsala Raj

Aastha Verma Vs Rakshit Gaur

M S Sanju Vs C v Veena Priyadarshini

Mr. Anil Peter D Cunha Vs Mrs. Prafulla Flavia Miranda

Sri Ashok Kumar S Vs Dr Archana G