MANGANCES ORE INDIA LTD Vs. MANGILAL RUNGTA CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-decree- hoder M/s. Manganese Ore (India) Limited obtained a decree for recovery of Rs. 3,84,375.00 (the principal amount) with interest at 6% p. a. with effect from 11th April, 1969 to 20th June, 1979 amounting to Rs. 2,35,111.00 and future interest at 6 % p. a. till realisation and costs of the suit against the Judgment- Debtor, M/s. Mangilal Rungta from the Court of Joint Civil Judge (S. D. Nagpur) on 21st September, 1978. On the strength of a Transfer Certificate issued by the said Court, the petitioner took out execution in this Court with the prayer that the decretal amount be realised by attachment of debts payable by the Garnishee, Steel Authority of India Limited, New Delhi, to the Judgment-Debtor and ordering them to pay into this. Court the amount necessary to satisfy fully the aforesaid decree. Accordingly, notice under Order 21, Rule 46-A of the Civil P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was issued to the Garnishee as well as the Judgment- Debtor. The Judgment-Debtor has filed an affidavit sworn by Shri Satya Narayan Rungta, a partner of the J. D. firm to the effect that the latter did not sell any manganese ore or iron ore to the Steel Authority of India Limited, New Delhi and that no amount is due from or payable by the said Authority to the J. D. firm on account of any alleged sale of manganese ore or iron ore. He has further denied that there was any running contract or account between the J. D. firm and the said Garnishee for the purchase of manganese-ore or iron-ore. Similarly, counsel for the Garnishee (Steel Authority of India Limited) has made a statement that there was no contract between the J. D. firm and the said Authority for supply of manganese-ore or iron-ore and that no amount whatsoever is due from them to the J. D. firm on any account.

(2.) In view of this clear stand taken by the Garnishee as well as the Judgment-Debtor firm, the learned counsel for the D. H. has frankly stated that no further action is called for and the Garnishee be discharged. However, he has prayed that the Judgment-debtor be summoned under Order 21, Rule 41 of the Code for making a statement disclosing their assets.

(3.) Thus, the short question for determination is whether this Court being a transferee Court has jurisdiction to go ahead with the execution .proceedings or not.