MARUTI LTD Vs. PAN INDIA PLASTIC PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON March, 2, 1984 a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,29,562. 40 with interest and costs was passed in favour of the decree-holders M/s. Maruti Ltd. and M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. against the judgment-debtor M/s. Pan India Plastic Pvt. Ltd. through Rabindera Grewal, Managing Director and Shri Ranindra Grewal Managing Director, M/ s. Pan India Plastic Pvt. Ltd. Execution of the decree was taken in this Court for recovery of the decretal amount which included interest and costs was stated to be Rs. 2,00,364. 50, by attachment and sale of movable property described as air-conditioner, car, scooter, electric fans, radio, transistors, T. V. , refrigerator, machinery, office furniture, cash, all other goods and every other movable and immovable property found at the spot. 'thus warrant of attach- ment was issued. The attachment could not be effected as per report on the warrant of attachment which is Exhibit A. 4. The report is dated May 7, 1985.

(2.) SOME contempt proceedings were initiated by the Court in view of the report-Exhibit A. 4 against two persons, namely, Rabindra S. Grewal and Dhan Raj. Ultimately both these persons submitted affidavit copies which are Annexures A. 2 and A. 3. They tendered unqualified apologies for causing directly or indirectly hindrance in the execution of warrant of attachment issued against the judgment-debtor. They sought forgivaness from this Court. Thus, in view thereof no further action was taken against the aforesaid two persons by the Court.

(3.) THE decree-holders moved the present application C. A. No. 59 of 1986 in Execution Petition No. 5/l of 1984 under Order 21, Rule ll-A read with S. 55 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for arrest and detention of the Managing Director of judgment-debtor No. 1, M/s. Pan India Plastic (P) Ltd. , which is for disposal. The aforesaid facts have been mentioned in the application. In para 2 of the application it is mentioned that the judgment-debtor did not permit the execution of the warrant of attachment issued by this Court. The Process Server and the nominee of the decree-holder were not allowed to enter the premises to effect the attachment. The resistance was offered to the extent that the entrance gate was locked and was not opened in spite of the fact that the Civil Nazir accompanied the representative of the decree-holder. In para 3 reference has been made of issuing notices to Shri Rabindra Singh Grewal and Dhan Raj Chowkidar and affidavits filed by them. It is not considered necessary to refer in detail about the matters mentioned in the affidavits. Suffice it to say that they stated that the property of the Company had already been sold under orders of Delhi High Court and the remaining land and property was being auctioned by the Haryana Financial Corporation. Along with the execution application affidavit of Mohinder Singh, Assistant Secretary, Maruti Udyog was filed. Reply to the application was filed by way of affidavit of Rabindra S. Grewal wherein he stated that he had no assets left of his own and the assets sought to be attached at 14/3, Palam, Gurgaon Road, did not belong to him but were in fact totally owned by Mr. B. S. Grewal, I. C. S. (Retired), (his father ). In the affidavit filed by Shri Dhan Raj, he stated that he was Chowkidar of Shri B. S. Grewal at the farm-house and had nothing to do with the Company against whom warrant of attachment was issued and that he never obstructed attachment of the property.