PAFCO 2916 INC. Vs. KINGFISHER AIRLINES LIMITED, BENGALURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions relate to execution of decrees obtained by the decree holder in the Court of United Kingdom. Since common questions of fact and law are involved, they are heard and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Facts in brief which has led to filling of these writ petitions are as follows: RE: W.P.Nos.32399/2015 & 32403/2015 Decree holders in these two writ petitions having obtained judgment and decree against respondents - judgment debtors on 13.12.2013 by High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, Royal Court of Justice have filed two execution petitions namely, Execution Petition Nos. 1267/2014 and 1274/2014 before City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The original judgment and decrees came to be modified during the pendency of execution petitions. Hence, applications for amendment came to be filed in these two execution petitions seeking for amendment namely, to amend the amounts mentioned in the respective executive petitions. Applications for amendment of executive petitions came to be opposed by both the judgment debtors. At the time of hearing of these amendment applications. Executing Court suo molu raised the issue of maintainability of these execution petitions i.e., Execution Petition Nos.1267/2014 and 1274/ 2014 since said judgment and decree passed against Kingfisher Airlines Limited as well as-United Breweries (Holdings) Limited was one and the same. After hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, Executing Court by impugned orders has arrived at a conclusion that since the amount claimed in both the Execution Petition Nos. 1267/2014 and 1274/2014 arc one and same and decree holder having filed two Execution Petitions viz., 1268/ 2014 and 1276/2014 which relates to same transaction, decree holder with an intention to recover double the decretal amount, directed the decree holder to amend Execution Petition Nos. 1267/2014 and 1274/2014 so that its claim in both the petitions should not exceed the amount due to the decree holder under the transaction in which decree holder has obtained two (2) separate decrees. In other words, it has been held that decree holder has to restrict its prayer as against jointly and severally liability fixed under the decrees, though it has been held that two execution petitions i.e., Execution Petition Nos. 1267/2014 and 1274/2014 are maintainable. RE: W.P.Nos.32400 & 32405/2015:

(3.) Decree holder under these two writ petitions having obtained a judgment and decree against respondents - judgment debtors on 13.12.2013 by High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, Royal Court of Justice have filed two execution petitions namely Execution Petition No. 1268/2014 and Execution Petition No. 1276/2014 against Kingfisher Airlines Limited and United Breweries (Holdings) Limited before City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The original judgment and decrees came to be modified during the pendency of execution petitions. Hence, applications for amendment came to be filed in these two execution petitions seeking for amendment namely, to amend the amounts mentioned in the respective executive petitions. Applications for amendment of executive petitions came to be opposed by both the judgment debtors. At the time of hearing of these amendment applications, Executing Court suo motu raised the issue of maintainability of these execution petitions i.e., Execution Petitions Nos. 1268/ 2014 and 1276/2014 since judgment and decree passed against both judgment debtors are one and same. After hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, Executing Court by impugned orders has arrived at a conclusion that since the amount claimed in both the Execution Petition Nos.1268/2014 and 1276/2014 are one and same and decree holder having filed two Execution Petitions viz., 1267/ 2014 and 1274/2014 which relates to same transaction, decree holder with an intention to recover double the decretal amount, directed the decree holder to amend Execution Petition Nos. 1268/2014 and 1276/2014 so that its claim in both the petitions should not exceed the amount due to the decree holder under the transaction in which decree holder has obtained two (2) separate decrees. In other words, it has been held that decree holder has to restrict its prayer as against jointly and severally liability fixed under the decrees, though it has been held that two execution petitions i.e., Execution Petition Nos.1267/2014 and 1274/2014 are maintainable. RE: W.P.Nos.32401/2015, 32402/2015 AND W.P.32404/2015