THE MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. GAJA NAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION is allowed and Annexure A -1 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

(2.) RESPONDENT no. 1 -decree -holder (DH) filed execution petition for execution of the aforesaid decree, which has been upheld up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner raised objections that the petitioner -Hafed is not liable to satisfy the decree because it had taken the Mill -respondent no. 2 on lease and the DH -respondent no. 1 was employee of respondent no. 2 and not of petitioner -Hafed. It was also alleged that respondent no. 2 Mill (a registered Co -operative Society) is under liquidation and official Liquidator was appointed vide order dated 23.03.1999.

(3.) RESPONDENT no. 1 -DH resisted the objection and controverted the pleas raised by the petitioner -objector.