2019 (3) TMI 2070 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - Execution of a money decree - attachment of the immovable and movable properties of the judgment-debtor - HELD THAT - All that is stated is that the judgment- debtor and its Directors have been convicted in the Section 138 NI Act proceedings and have been directed to pay the cheque amount along with interest. It is nowhere stated in the list of dates also that the payments have been received. The execution petition is thus found to be in abuse of the process of the Court and the decree-holder therefor is burdened with costs of Rs. 50,000/-, out of which Rs. 25,000/- be deposited with Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust and Rs. 25,000/- be paid to the counsel for the judgment-debtor as costs of today s hearing, both within ten days of today - If the decree-holder, within ten days does not produce a receipt of deposit / payment of such costs with the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust and to the counsel for the judgment-debtor and does not show the same to the Court Master, the Court Master to have the execution petition re-listed for appropriate action against the decree-holder. The execution petition is disposed of as satisfied.

Issues:
1. Execution of a money decree by attachment of immovable and movable properties.
2. Existence of judgment-debtor at different premises.
3. Attachment of properties not belonging to the judgment debtor.
4. Payment of decretal amount under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
5. Pending appeal against findings of Metropolitan Magistrate.
6. Decision not to press appeal for refund of payment.
7. Suppression of facts by the decree-holder in the execution petition.
8. Disclosure of facts in the list of dates.
9. Requirement of averments in pleadings, not in the list of dates.
10. Abuse of the court process in the execution petition.
11. Imposition of costs on the decree-holder for abuse of court process.
12. Instructions for depositing costs with the Advocates Welfare Trust and counsel for judgment-debtor.
13. Disposal of the execution petition as satisfied based on the statement of judgment-debtor's counsel.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the execution of a money decree through the attachment of immovable and movable properties of the judgment-debtor at various locations in New Delhi. The decree-holder sought attachment at three premises, and issues arose regarding the existence of the judgment-debtor at these locations.
2. The counsel for the decree-holder confirmed the existence of the judgment-debtor at two premises but clarified that the third property was the residence of the Director of the judgment debtor, not a party to the decree. Consequently, properties not belonging to the judgment debtor could not be attached.
3. It was revealed that the decretal amount was paid under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and both parties had filed appeals against the findings of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The decree-holder acknowledged receiving the payment but failed to disclose this fact in the execution petition, leading to suppression of crucial information.
4. The judgment highlighted the obligation of the decree-holder to disclose all relevant facts to the court. The failure to do so was deemed an abuse of the court process. The court imposed costs on the decree-holder for this suppression of facts and directed the deposit of specified amounts with the Advocates Welfare Trust and the counsel for the judgment-debtor within a specified timeframe.
5. If the costs were not deposited as instructed, the court ordered the re-listing of the execution petition for appropriate action. However, if the costs were deposited within the stipulated time, the execution petition would be considered satisfied based on the statement of the judgment-debtor's counsel regarding the payment of the decretal amount.

← Previous Next →