GOLD COINS HOTELS AND RESORTS LTD. NOW KNOWN AS M/S. RENOWN HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. CHETAN P TAYAL Vs. SRI. MOHAMMED NISSAR, SMT. ABIDA NAHID, SRI. L. CHATURBHUJ AND SMT. C. MAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Judgment debtor no. 1 in Ex. No. 1566/2012 and respondents are the Decree holders (hereinafter they are referred to as such). The Decree holders had filed Ex. No. 1566/2012 for execution of compromise decree made by this court in RFA No. 2110/2006 c/w RFA Nos. 2027/2006 and 2028/2006 dated 13.04.2010. The execution petition was filed for execution of registered sale deed in respect of premises bearing no. 6, old No. 3, situated at Leonard Lane, Richmond Town and property known as Radhakrishna Complex bearing No. 1/1, situated at K.B. Temple Street, 6th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore and office No. 204 and 205, having super built up area of 2000 Sq. ft., situated at 2nd floor of Radhakrishna Complex. The decree holders have also sought for possession of aforestated property. After entering appearance, judgment debtor no. 1 has filed several objections on different occasions by contending that in terms of compromise decree, the decree holders have not handed over vacant possession of premises no. 64 of the first floor in the building known as Gold Tower and they have not withdrawn the criminal case and they have not returned the cheque for Rs. 90,00,000/ - to the judgment debtor no. 1.

(2.) THE judgment debtor no. 1 has filed second statement of objection contending that decree holders had collected 590 On Demand Promissory Notes valued at. Rs. 208.85 Lakhs and other share certificates however, the decree holders have produced only 35 original pronotes and photostat copies of 3 share certificates for being returned to the judgment debtor no. 1.

(3.) THE decree holders have contended that, in order to discharge their obligation in terms of compromise decree, decree holders have produced 35 On Demand Promissory Notes and 3 share certificates, which are kept in safe custody of the Execution Court. The decree holders have withdrawn O.S. No. 15859/2006 and Writ Appeal No. 226/2008. They have filed application to withdraw C.C. No. 30960/2006 pending on the file of 4th ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in respect of cheque bounce case and they have also filed memo of undertaking to the effect that decree holders are ready to indemnify judgment debtor no. 1 against all consequences arising out of the above criminal case. The decree holders have contended that other than 35 On Demand Promissory Notes and 3 share certificates which they have produced before the court and kept in the safe custody, they are not in possession of any other Promissory Note/Notes executed by judgment debtor no. 1. The decree holders in order to comply with the terms of compromise decree have delivered vacant possession of basement floor of property bearing No. 64 to judgment debtor no. 1 and the decree holders have also produced acknowledgement of judgment debtor no 1 for having received vacant possession of basement floor of property bearing No. 64. The decree holders have handed over the key of the first floor of the premises to the Execution Court. The key is kept in safe custody of the Execution Court. The decree holders have no objection to hand over the key to judgment debtor no 1 after execution of sale deed in their favour. The decree holders have contended that they have discharged their obligations in terms of compromise decree. The judgment debtor no. 1 has received Pay Order for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ - towards purchase of machineries in property no. 64. The decree holders have produced the acknowledgement issued by judgment debtor no. 1 before the Execution Court. In the circumstances, the decree holders have contended that judgment debtor no. 1 cannot resist execution of sale deed by making unnecessary allegations against decree holders.