MASHREQ BANK PSC Vs. NAVIN KHILNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT Debtor suffered a decree in the High Court of Justice Queen 's Bench Division, United Kingdom (UK) for a total sum of £7,059,589.95. The Decree Holder bank filed an execution of this decree before this Court. Judgment Debtor resisted the execution of this decree in the Indian Court and filed objections against the execution. These objections were decided by the Court on 9th November, 2005 holding that the decree passed by the Division Bench of High Court of UK was a judgment on merits and since this had not been appealed against, the judgment had attained finality and was executable in India. Judgment Debtor also raised objection that decree could not be executed in view of requirement of permission of RBI and in view of provisions of FERA. Notice of this objection was sent to RBI and RBI made a statement in the Court that no permission of RBI was required for execution of the decree and repatriation of money in execution of decree to the Decree Holder bank situated in UK. The Judgment Debtor challenged the order dated 9th November, 2005 of the Single Bench of this Court before Division Bench. However, the Division Bench confirmed the order of the Single Bench and dismissed the appeal of the Judgment Debtor vide order dated 25th May, 2007.

(2.) THE Judgment Debtor was given direction to file a list of his movable and immovable assets. Judgment Debtor filed an affidavit stating that from 1990 -96 he was carrying on business in Dubai. Since the English Company of which Dubai company was a subsidiary went into liquidation the business at Dubai came to an end and was closed down and he came to Delhi in 1996. Thereafter, he was made a Director of Munradtech Industrial Generators (P) Ltd., a company set up by his brother. This Indian Company was facing difficulties and he was appointed as an Executive Director of this company though he did not own a share in the company with the sole aim to revive the company and separate its business from its parent English company. This company also failed and was wound up in Company Petition No. CP -144/1998 and all assets of the company were taken over by Small Industries Development Corporation, who had to recover loans. He stated that he was having only one immovable property i.e. his house No. B -22, Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi and he had no other property anywhere else and he was living along with his mother in the said house, no portion of the house was let out.

(3.) THE Judgment Debtor had taken the stand that his mother was receiving pension of £500 p.m. and was maintaining him. It was revealed that he had three credit cards. The credit card statements filed by the Judgment Debtor showed that he had incurred expenditure of Rs. 30,000/ - on making purchases from various shops and eating in restaurants in one month of February, 2003. On enquiry by the court, he had taken the stand that his entire expenditure was being borne by his mother. He was told to file additional affidavit if he has filed any income tax return from 1996 -97 onwards and he was also told to give his bank accounts. The Court also recorded statement of his mother. In her statement recorded on 17.9.2008, the mother of Judgment Debtor stated that she had worked in British Airways and was receiving pension from UK. Her pension was £ 500 p.m. (about Rs. 45,000/ -) from British Airways. He had one car and two servants; she had air conditioners in the house. She was paying Rs. 5,000/ - to the two servants. Her monthly electricity expenditure was between Rs. 10,000/ to 12,000/ -. Her monthly medical expenses were between Rs. 1500 -2000/ -. She stated that she herself was not having credit card but her son was having three credit cards as per her knowledge but stated that these credit cards were on her behest because she herself was unable to go for shopping and all bills of credit cards were being paid by her. She could not say the total amount which was debited on account of the credit cards on an average. She also could not tell how much was monthly expenditure on her son. She stated that the car was being maintained by her and was used by her son whenever he had to go out. Her son was associated with a voluntary organization called SPICMACAY wherefrom he did not get any payment except travelling expenses. She was also receiving about £ 200 a month from other investments. She used to take help of her daughter, who was a qualified barrister in UK, whenever she needed additional money. She used to go to UK and in February, 2008 had spent about a month in Singapore. She had a bank account in UK where her pension was deposited and her daughter had authority to operate the said bank account. She receives money in her bank account in India from her account in UK.