Dismissed

M/S Sham Agencies General Merchants etc. v. PNB etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Aug 2009CR/1018/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision challenged the executing court's order dismissing objection petition during a decree execution. The High Court held the revision lacked merit as debtors failed to substantiate claims regarding unpaid deposits and excessive interest rates despite the underlying decree.

What did the court decide?

Rev maintained status quo of execution proceedings without ordering any refund or additional interest adjustments.

M/S Sham Agencies General Merchants etc… — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No. 1018 of 1994 Date of Decision : August 11, 2009

¶3

M/s Sham Agencies General Merchants, D.S.P. Road, Fatehabad and another

¶4

....Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Punjab National Bank and another

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶9

Present : Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocate for Mr. S.D.Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

None for the respondent-bank.

¶11

T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

¶12

Suit for recovery filed by the respondent-bank was finally decreed by the learned trial Court on 5.1.1993. As the judgment debtors failed to comply with the same, the decree holder applied for execution of the decree. According to the decree holder, the outstanding amount was Rs.87,510.25 Ps including interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit till 18.7.1993, when the execution was filed. The actual decretal amount was Rs.44,308.57 Ps, which included principal amount of Rs.35,088.45 Ps and interest from 9.6.1989 to 18.7.1993 after adjusting an amount of Rs.9,000/-, which stood deposited by the judgment debtors. The aforementioned amount claimed by the decree holder included costs of Rs.8,113.25 Ps awarded by the trial Court.

¶13

C.R. No. 1018 of 1994 -2-

¶14

The execution was opposed by the judgment debtors by filing an objection petition. However, vide impugned order dated 15.1.1994, learned executing Court dismissed the objection petition and issued notice under Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶15

After hearing learned counsel for the parties the present revision filed by the judgment debtors was admitted by this Court and an interim order passed staying the auction of the property, subject to the petitioners depositing an amount of Rs.40,000/- within a period of one month.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had already paid an amount of Rs.26,000/-(approximately) but the said amount was not adjusted by the decree holder, while applying for the execution of the decree.

¶17

It was the case of the decree holder that whatever amount had been paid, was duly shown in the statement of accounts. In such a situation, the judgment debtors cannot be heard saying that they had not been given the benefit of the deposit of Rs.26,000/-(approximately). Moreover, they have not produced any material to establish the payment of Rs.26,000/-(approximately) with the decree holder.

¶18

Another argument submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the decree holder was claiming interest at an exorbitant rate of 17.5% per annum besides also claiming compound interest, which cannot be permitted.

¶19

Admittedly, it was a commercial transaction between the decree holder and the judgment debtors. On account of the judgment debtors not

¶20

C.R. No. 1018 of 1994 -3-

¶21

returning the loan alongwith interest to the decree holder, the latter was left with no other option but to file a suit for recovery of the amount. There is no material available on the record to show that the rate of interest was not agreed upon at 17.5% per annum or that the decree holder could claim only lower rate of interest. As per the arrangement between the decree holder and the judgment debtors, in the event of non payment of the amount, the decree holder could claim compound interest on the outstanding amount. Moreover at the stage of execution, the Court cannot go behind the decree. Whatever had been awarded under the decree can be legally claimed by the decree holder.

¶22

The judgment debtors had also taken the objection that the execution had not been applied by a properly authorized person. However, they failed to produce any material as to why Mr.M.L.Arora, Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, was not the authorized person.

¶23

Learned executing Court, while dismissing the objection petition, rightly observed that the objection petition was filed just for the sake of raising objection and not for any valid reason.

¶24

In view of the above, there is no merit in the revision, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶25

August 11, 2009 ajay-1

¶26

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE

M/S Sham Agencies General Merchants etc. v. PNB etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sham Agencies General Merchants etc. v. PNB etc.

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

Kamal Netar Sharma Vs Roshan Lal and Others

Gurcharan Singh Vs Gurdev Singh and Ors.

Rajni Sharma Vs Animesh Tyagi and Ors.

Mangat Ram and Ors. Vs Sunder Devi and Ors.

Renuka Vs Aditya

Mohinder Singh and Ors. Vs Sarwan Singh and Ors.