Dismissed

M/S Deepika Alloys v. M/S Kelvin Bikes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Oct 2012CR/4110/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition questioning the dismissal of a refund application. The Court held the petition was misconceived and not maintainable as the petitioner had previously allowed respondent substitution as decree-holder and participated in the transaction with eyes open.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not maintainable.

M/S Deepika Alloys Vs M/S Kelvin Bikes… — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 4110 of 2010 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Revision No. 4110 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.10.2012

M/s Deepika Alloys

....Petitioner

Vs.

M/s Kelvin Bikes Pvt. Ltd. & another

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶10

¶11

Present:Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Amit Rawal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sahil Khunger, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶13

A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL)

¶14

This petition assails an order dated 15.05.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana (Executing Court), dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for refund of Rs.4,30,000/-, which were deposited by the plaintiff as consideration for the passage qua which the sale deed was to be executed by the defendant/judgment debtor.

¶15

The petition appears to be misconceived. Earlier the petitioner was decree-holder and allowed the respondent-M/s Kelvin Bikes Pvt. Ltd. to be substituted in its place without any objection. Now the petitioner is claiming refund of the aforesaid

¶16

Civil Revision No. 4110 of 2010 (O&M) 2

¶17

amount while saying that the decree dated 22.08.1996 was the result of fraud and the same is inexecutable. As a matter of fact, the decree holder M/s Kelvin Bikes Pvt. Ltd.-respondent No.1 (being assignee) had been substituted in place of M/s Deepika Alloys-petitioner in the year 2003 and after the said substitution, the dispute remained between respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Furthermore, the petitioner was having its eyes open at the time of entering into a compromise with Ishar Singh and allowing the Court to pass a decree dated 22.08.1996, while accepting the contention of Ishar Singh that he was ready to transfer the land comprised in Khasra No. 341 on payment of Rs.4,30,000/-. Now by way of a simple application, the petitioner cannot come to contend that the said agreement was not valid and the decree is inexecutable. The said decree cannot be set aside merely on the basis of this contention.

¶18

As such, the present petition being not maintainable, is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner may seek any remedy, available to him, as provided under law.

¶19

(A.N.JINDAL) October 30, 2012 JUDGE ajp

M/S Deepika Alloys v. M/S Kelvin Bikes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Deepika Alloys v. M/S Kelvin Bikes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

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

Mohd. Jamil Alias Jamil Mohd. Vs Surinder Pal Singh, etc.

Mohd. Jamil Alias Jamil Mohd. Vs Surinder Pal Singh, etc.

Lekh Raj Vs Kamlesh Rani

(O&M) Amrik Singh Vs M/S Amin Lal Isher Ram and Co.

(O&M) Vinay Rathi & Anr. Vs Deepak Rathi

(O&M) Guru Gobind Singh Educ. Socy.Muktsar Vs Dr.Babita Singh and Ors.