9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Objections under Order 21 Rules 58 & 59 CPC regarding property attachment; Ownership claim by objectors against Decree Holder's attachment; Allegations of collusion between objectors and Judgment Debtor; Validity of agreements to sell; Wrongful attachment and liability of Decree Holder.
Ownership Claim and Collusion Allegations: The objectors claimed ownership of the property with supporting documents, while the Decree Holder alleged collusion between the objectors and the Judgment Debtor. The Decree Holder contended that the property was the registered office of the Judgment Debtor company, but the court found this insufficient to justify attachment. Evidence and Lack of Collusion Impact: The Decree Holder failed to provide concrete evidence of collusion and the court questioned the relevance of proving collusion without a direct impact on the execution of the decree against the Judgment Debtor. The court highlighted the loss caused by wrongful attachment as recognized in Section 95 CPC. Legal Provisions and Corporate Veil: The judgment discussed the applicability of Section 531 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act in cases of fraudulent transfers. It emphasized that the Judgment Debtor's debts are not recoverable from shareholders or family members unless specific conditions for piercing the corporate veil are met. Validity of Agreements to Sell: The court addressed the issue of unregistered agreements to sell the property and cited relevant case law regarding such transactions in Delhi. It emphasized that attachment can only continue if the property belongs to the Judgment Debtor. Decree Holder's Responsibility and Wrongful Attachment: The court criticized the Decree Holder for obtaining attachment without proper inquiry into the property's ownership and for persisting in the attachment despite being informed of the objectors' title. It emphasized the liability of the Decree Holder for wrongful attachment and vacated the attachment in favor of the objectors. Liability and Redressal: The judgment highlighted the Decree Holder's liability for wrongful attachment and emphasized the need for redressal within the same litigation to prevent litigants from causing harm through baseless litigation. It cited legal precedents regarding wrongful attachment and held the Decree Holder accountable for the wrongful attachment of the objectors' property.
|
