2003 (12) TMI 323 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal or stay of Execution proceedings and quashing of the warrant of attachment.
2. Validity of the arbitral award and subsequent execution.
3. Alleged transactions and ownership of shares.
4. Jurisdiction and maintainability of the Chamber Summons.
5. Specific account (DP Account No. 10545059) and immovable properties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Dismissal or Stay of Execution Proceedings and Quashing of the Warrant of Attachment:
The applicants, who are family members of the proprietor of the Judgment Debtor, sought relief to dismiss or stay the execution proceedings initiated by the Decree Holder and to quash the warrant of attachment. The court noted that the applicants failed to provide evidence of the underlying contract notes or payment of consideration for the shares they claimed to have purchased. The court emphasized that the shares were in the D-Mat accounts of the Respondent and there was no cogent evidence to support the applicants' claims of ownership.

2. Validity of the Arbitral Award and Subsequent Execution:
The Petitioner, a member of the National Stock Exchange, had an arbitral award in its favor for Rs. 38,23,758 with interest. The Respondent's petition to set aside the award was dismissed, and the subsequent appeal was admitted with conditions for stay, which were not complied with, leading to the vacating of the stay. The court confirmed that the Petitioner was entitled to execute the award as per the Division Bench's order.

3. Alleged Transactions and Ownership of Shares:
The applicants claimed to have purchased shares through the Respondent, but the court found the affidavit in support to be silent on crucial details like contract notes and payment of consideration. The court observed that the shares were already in the Respondent's account before the alleged transactions and dismissed the claims as bogus and fictitious. The explanation provided by the Respondent was deemed untenable as he was not a registered broker or sub-broker with the BSE or NSE.

4. Jurisdiction and Maintainability of the Chamber Summons:
The court affirmed its jurisdiction to entertain claims or objections related to attached property under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The rule allows the court to adjudicate questions of right, title, or interest in the attached property and make orders equivalent to a decree.

5. Specific Account (DP Account No. 10545059) and Immovable Properties:
Regarding DP Account No. 10545059, which is in the joint names of the proprietor of the Respondent and his son, the court noted the Petitioner's concession to not proceed against this account without prior court permission. The court clarified that all contentions regarding this account are kept open for future proceedings. No attachment was sought or levied on the immovable properties at Muzaffarpur, so the court did not address this issue.

Conclusion:
The Chamber Summons was dismissed except for the specific concession regarding DP Account No. 10545059. The court ordered the status quo to be maintained for six weeks and directed that authenticated copies of the order be provided to the parties.

← Previous Next →