Disposed

E.v.R.Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director v. Kandregula Radhika

Telangana HC8 Sept 2016AS/522/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On appeal against dismissal of a third party claim petition for raising an attachment order, the court disposed of the matter upon the creation of a settlement between the parties, accepting demand drafts as full and final satisfaction of the decree. Consequently, the execution petition and decree were terminated.

What did the court decide?

Execution petition terminated; decree discharged; attachment order raised; bank guarantee money returned to appellant.

E.v.R.Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., rep. by its Managing… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶4

APPEAL SUIT No. 522 of 2015

¶5

JUDGMENT: (Per VRS,J)

¶6

This appeal arises out of the dismissal of a claim petition filed by a third party to a decree under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC seeking to raise an order of attachment of movable properties.

¶7

Heard Mr. T. Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for the

¶8

appellant, Mr. K. Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent/decree holder, and Mr. K. Raja Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5, who are the judgment debtors.

¶9

The 1^st respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.131 of 2010

¶10

against the respondents 2 to 5 herein for recovery of money. The suit was decreed and the decree has attained finality. Therefore, the 1^st respondent laid execution in E.P.No.245 of 2010. In the execution petition, certain movables were ordered to be attached by the executing Court. Upon coming to know of the attachment of the movables, the appellant, who claimed to have purchased the immovable properties as well as the movable properties, which were actually put to use for running a hotel, came up with an application in E.A.No.316 of 2011 under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, seeking to

¶11

VRS,J & ANIS,J AS No 522 of 2015

¶12

¶13

raise the order of attachment, on the ground that the properties attached had already been purchased by them. The said claim petition was dismissed by the executing Court, by an order, dated 04.07.2015. Therefore, the third party, whose claim petition was dismissed by the executing Court, has come up with the above regular appeal.

¶14

During the pendency of the above appeal, the appellant/third party seems to have entered into a settlement with the 1^st respondent/decree holder. Pursuant to the said settlement, the appellant has taken two demand drafts, bearing Nos.674657 and 674658, respectively for the amounts of Rs.9.00 lakhs and Rs.6.00 lakhs, drawn on Bank of India, in the name of the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent is present in Court. She is prepared to receive the demand drafts in full and final satisfaction of her claim in the decree in O.S.No.131 of 2010 and the claim in the execution petition, E.P.No.245 of 2010.

¶15

The appellant and the 1^st respondent have also entered into a Memorandum of Compromise. But, since the judgment debtors also raised a dispute, we are not recording the compromise here. However, insofar as the appeal is concerned, the moment the execution petition is terminated recording full satisfaction, there is no necessity for any adjudication upon the claim petition.

¶16

VRS,J & ANIS,J AS No 522 of 2015

¶17

¶18

Therefore, the demands drafts are handed over to the 1^st respondent/decree holder, who is present in Court, Consequently, the Appeal Suit is disposed of, to the following effect:

¶19

1. E.P.No.245 of 2010 shall stand terminated, on the ground that full and final satisfaction has been reached.

¶20

1. The decree debt in O.S.No.131 of 2010 stands discharged.

¶21

1. As a consequence, the order of attachment passed in E.P.No.245 of 2010 shall stand raised.

¶22

As a consequence of the appellant discharging the decree debt of the respondents 2 to 5, the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, is also discharged and the appellant is permitted to take back the money.

¶23

1. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the

¶25

appeal shall stand dismissed.

¶26

__________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J

¶27

8^th September, 2016 Note: Furnish C.C. by 09.09.2016. (b/o) cbs

¶28

VRS,J & ANIS,J AS No 522 of 2015

¶29

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN 

¶31

AND

¶32

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶33

Appeal Suit No. 522 of 2015

¶34

(Per VRS,J)

¶35

8^th September, 2016

¶36

cbs

E.v.R.Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director v. Kandregula Radhika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.v.R.Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director v. Kandregula Radhika

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

Guru Nanak Educational Society, Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)

Madarsa-I-Aizza Educational Society, Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)

Chatla Venkatesham Memorial (Cvm) Educational Society Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Hyderabad

M/s. Madhupala Estates (P) Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer

Mohd. Abdul Khader Memorial Educational Society, Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)

Avanthi Educational Society. Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)