9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and propriety of orders passed by the learned Single Judge regarding objections raised by respondent No.2. 2. Whether the property in question could be sold in execution of the decree. Issue 1: The appellant, a decree holder, filed an Execution Petition to recover the awarded amount. The property in question was attached and put up for auction, but respondent No.2 objected, claiming ownership and stating the property could not be sold in execution. The Single Judge accepted the objections, imposing a cost on the appellant. The High Court reviewed the orders and found them incorrect. The respondent's objections were dismissed, and the auction was allowed to proceed. Issue 2: The property in question was initially attached based on the decree against a private limited company. The Managing Director of the company, Mr. Aushim Khetrapal, was a tenant in the property at the time of attachment. Subsequently, he purchased the property jointly with his wife and assured the Court of making payments to settle the decree. Despite bounced cheques and default, the property was put up for sale. The respondent No.2 claimed to be a bona fide purchaser, but the High Court found that Mr. Khetrapal's actions, including selling the property to another party, were deceptive. The Court allowed the auction of the property to satisfy the decree in favor of the appellant.
|
