D I LAL Vs. S GANGULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the execution case No. 56/84, 2375 shares standing in the name of the judgment debtor P.S. Khambete in the Company M/s. Superior Air Products Ltd. were ordered to be attached vide order dated 29th March 1984. The order dated 10th August 1984 shows that the statement of the judgment debtor P.S. Khambere was recorded by the court wherein he stated that the shares of the said company had been lost by him a few years back. There was a letter on the records of this company that the shares mentioned in the records of this case were standing in the name of P.S. Khambete judgment debtor. Vide order dated 10th August 1984 Shri U.L. Watwani Advocate was appointed by the Court a Receiver to take charge of the shares attached from the Delhi Stock Exchange Limited. It was further directed that the Receiver would also take steps to get duplicate shares of M/s, Superior Air Products Ltd. standing in the name of P.S. Khambete who was present in court on that day and he was also directed to assist the Receiver in all respects in getting the duplicate shares issued from the said company in accordance with law.

(2.) The C.C.P. was then moved by the decree-holder on 19th September 1984 wherein it was alleged that the Managing Director and the Secretary of the said company flatly refused to obey the order of the court and had rather shown disrespect to the Receiver when the Receiver visited the premises of the company on 18th August 1984 and 21st August 1984. The contempt application was resisted by M/s. Superior Air Products Ltd. New Delhi, by filing two counter affidavits-one of Avinash Chander, Managing Director of this Company and the other by Shri S. Ganguli, Secretary of this company.

(3.) By means of the application being 1.A. No. 57/87 filed underorder 47 rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure M/s. Superior Air Products Ltd., New Delhi, has sought review of the order dated 10th August 1984 only to the extent as far as this company was directed by the court to issue duplicate shares and consequently for the dimissal of the contempt petition. This application for review has been resisted by the decree-holder.