PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. INDER BHUSHAN KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER u/s. 51 CPC read with Order 21 Rule 37, 38 and 39 CPC 1. This Court vide judgment dated 16th December, 2003 had passed a decree against Sh. Inder Bhushan Kohli and two others for sum of Rs. 25,52,915/-with costs and pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum. An execution of this decree was filed by the decree holder and the total amount payable by the JD on 2nd September, 2004 came to be Rs. 58,35,253/ -. Repeated notices of execution could not invoke interest of the JD and no execution could be done. JD No. 1 appeared in the Court in person and expressed his inability to pay the amount. He stated that the immovable property sought to be attached viz. 31-A, ground Floor, Block A-1-A Janak Puri, New Delhi had already been sold by him. He was asked to file an affidavit of his assets. He filed an affidavit regarding above property and stated that he had sold this property to one Sh. C. L. Kapoor for sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-, which amount was also not given by the seller in lumpsum and was paid to him only in installments of Rs. 10,000/- and rs. 15,000/ -. He had no money to pay to the decree holder.

(2.) IT be known that judgment was passed against JD, Sh. Inder bhushan Kohli and two others since JD was working in the decree holder bank and by manipulations of the accounts he committed fraud upon the decree holder bank and transferred funds out of the accounts under his control in his own name, in the name of his wife, i. e. , JD No. 2 and invested these funds for purchase of immovable properties in his own name, in the name of his wife as well as in the name of his son, JD No. 3. When the bank detected fraud, it lodged a criminal case and also filed a case for recovery of this amount. Along with the suit, bank also filed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 and under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking attachment of the following properties of JD Nos. 1, 2 and 3:

(3.) THE other 2 JDs had chosen not to appear in the Court, neither filed an affidavit about their assets. No steps were taken by any of the JDs for setting aside this decree passed by the Court. JD No. 1 though gave information about one flat, he gave no information in respect of rest of the properties. The information given by JD No. 1 is also not trustworthy since his claim that he sold flat in Janak Puri only for sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- is unbelievable. The value of flat in 1994 in Janak Puri could not have been so less as claimed by the judgment debtor and JD's claim that the vendee paid consideration only in installments of Rs. 10,000-Rs. 15,000/- is not supported by the documents. On the contrary, when attachment order was issued by this Court, the documents filed by the present occupant of the flat show that Sh. C. L. Kapoor had in fact paid the entire purchase price of the flat, i. e. , rs. 1,90,000/- as lump-sum and a receipt of receiving this entire amount on 4th october, 1993, few days before the passing of an injunction order by this Court, was placed on record. This Court had passed an injunction order restraining the defendant from selling any of its properties on 12th January, 1994 and the receipt placed on record by the subsequent purchaser is of 4th October, 1993. This only shows that the JD, who was already facing criminal charges got rid of the property to deprive decree holder bank of the fruits of decree. He made a false statement that he did not receive the payment in lump-sum and received payment in installments of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 15,000/ -.