Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: Back
Daily Status
IN THE COURT OF :COURT 15 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
Case No. :EXECUTION APPLN/0100372/2019
1. Joel Juliano Dsouza 2. Ganesh Talekar Vs Mr. Nurullah Kamruddin Veljee
Date : 18-01-2022
Business : Order below application Exh-02, of D.H. dated 22/12/2021.
In the application D.H. submitted that he intends to attach
Flat No. 701 Rizvi tower the property situated in the State
of Goa. He further submitted that he will also take steps
against other properties u/o -21 to the satisfaction of money
decree. The application was put up for order. But the
obstructionist filed reply and submitted that the property
attached by this court is in Mumbai first be released from
attachment and then allow DH to withdraw decree and got it
transfered to Goa. The decree is money decree to the sum of
Rs. 60,04,939 with further interest till realization. In the
execution application the D.H. No. 5 shown plot no 85
(Mumbai), Flat No. 5 &ampamp 6 (Mumbai) property
No. 701 (Goa) office at space deal (Goa) for attachment for
satisfaction of decree. From record it appear that for
satisfaction of money decree the D.H. has attached property
i.e. plot No.85 (Mumbai). After attachment obstructionist
No.1 &ampamp 2 have taken objection for attachment
with request to add them parties in the execution
application. The court was hearing argument at that time the
D.H. has moved the application and requested to transfer
decree without mentioning fact whether he wants to proceed
with property no. 85 which is already attached. Two
obstructionist have taken objection for attachment yet their
right &ampamp interest in attached property is to be
decided. In such circumstance it would not be proper to
transfer decree with attachment of property situated in
Mumbai. From application it appears that D.H. wants to
take action against property situated at Goa. If this is the
fact then certainly the earlier attachment of plot No. 85 will
be released from attachment because subject of attachment
standing as on, the property in Mumbai. So the D.H. can not
transfer decree at Goa. Because certainly it would cause
inconvenient to obstructionist to get decided the right of
obstructionist as raised by them in the attached property
situated in Mumbai. If D.H. wants to continue with the
attachment of plot no. 85 then first he would have to wait
the rights of obstructionist are decided in the attached
property otherwise the attachment property will be released
from attachment. The D.H. is at liberty to get the decree
transfer at GOA as per rule. Accordingly the application is
allowed as observed earlier.
Nature of Disposal : OTHERWISE
Disposal Date : 18-01-2022
-- 1 of 1 --