Order 3

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010136352019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
COMMON ORDER BELOW EXHS.04, 06 AND 08.
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 03 OF 2020
IN
CASE NO.CC/III/41 OF 2011
(On the file of Co-operative Court No. III, Mumbai)
Mr. B. S. Rath ...Org. Disputant / Decree Holder
Versus
The Jai Ganesh CHS Ltd. & Ors. ...Opponents/ Judgment Debtors
CORAM : HIS HONOUR AD-HOC JUDGE
& ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
SHRI A.K.KALE.
CITY CIVIL COURT, GR.BOMBAY
(C.R. NO.63).
DATE : 23/04/2024.
Ms. Joyce S. Rath, Advocate for the Org. Disputant/Decree Holder.
Mr. Ankush Saraf, Advocate for the Opponents/Judgment Debtors.
ORDER
1. The above applications filed by the decree holder for
-- 1 of 18 --
2
various reliefs i.e. for appointment of officer of court under Order XXI
Rule 34 of the CPC to execute leave and licence agreement. Further, for
issuance of warrant of attachment under Order XXI Rule 46 of CPC for
attaching all the accounts standing in the name of Judgment Debtor
(hereinafter referred as, “J.D”) with the Maharashtra Co-operative
Bank, for release of amount of Rs.33,337/- and for warrant of arrest
under Order XXI Rule 30 r/w Rule 38 of CPC against J.D.
2. Application Exh.6 is for same reliefs as per Exh.4 except the
relief of arrest of J.D. Application Exh.8 is for arrest of J.D. under Order
XXI Rule 31(1) and Rule 38 of CPC. It is submitted that as directed by
this court on 20-11-2021, to Bailiff to effect notice by substitute service
calling upon J.D. Mr. Anthony Rodrigues to appear before this court on
03-12-2021. Neither the J.D. appeared on the said date nor he was
represented by anybody. Inspite of immovable property being attached
on 21-03-2020 and movable property on 05-03-2021 the J.D. is not
complying the judicial order dtd.13-02-2019 and the rule of law, in a
bid to jeopardize the decree holders life and property for his personal
vested interests by deliberate intent to not to provide the decree holder
with the temporary alternate accommodation at the costs of the society
till all the repairs of his ground floor Flat No.4B are carried out as per
Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the judgment and decree of Co-operative Court.
As per Fire Brigade report dtd.31-05-2011 in Flat No. 4B signs of heavy
water leakage in hall, kitchen, bathroom etc. plaint work peeled off at
various places and plaster work was fallen at few places. Cracks were
seen to columns near bathrooms window, in kitchen and in bedroom. As
leakage seems to be heavy which may be deteriorated the condition and
involve life risk of the occupant of room. The report dtd. 03-06-2021 is
clearly indicates that three floors from decree holder’s flat are in danger
-- 2 of 18 --
3
of collapse and being on the ground floor, the risk to the life of decree
holder is very real and imminent where he could be crushed to death.
The notice from Municipal Corporation dtd.16-06-2021 seen that in
case of misshaped or untoward incident may happened involving
innocent lives and property this office will not be held responsible. So, it
is essential that the execution proceedings are expedited to avert
irreparable loss of life and decree holder. During the hearing of Writ
Petition(L) No. 973/2020 moved by the decree holder for urgent
interim reliefs of temporary alternate accommodation before division
bench of Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 973 of 2020, the J.D Mr.
Anthony Rodrigues frustrated interim relief to the decree holder by
insisting of the completion of execution proceedings. The J.D. filed W.P.
No. 10039 of 2021 on false statement that all accounts of Maharashtra
State Co-operative Bank are attached and without giving notice to the
decree holder during the pandemic obtained an order, whereby the
Hon'ble High Court released a sum of Rs.25,000/- only as one time
payment from the attached account. The intention of the J.D, was to
deplete the funds from the attached movable property and frustrate the
decree holder from having access to sufficient funds for alternate
accommodation and repairs. The Hon'ble High Court did not quash the
Execution proceeding as prayed by J.D. and only released Rs.25,000/-
from the attached Account No. 0132101062969 held by J.D, in Canara
Bank, Mahim Station Branch, Mumbai. Mr. Anthony Rodrigues has
played fraud on general body of society and the division bench by filing
W.P. No. 747 of 2020 to obstruct restoration and recovery of
Rs.57,59,505/- from six individually chargesheeted EX- Managing
Committee Members out of which Advocate Shri. Jaydeep Mitra
continued to be Managing Committee member and appears in all
litigation initiated by J.D. Anthony Rodrigues without any Society
-- 3 of 18 --
4
Resolution. The J.D, sought accommodation of Rs.25,000/- before the
Hon'ble High Court in W. P.(L)No. 10039 of 2021 to pay the utility bills
in the year 2021, whereas before the Division Bench in W. P .No. 747 of
2020, he as a deponent is obstructing the restoration and recovery of
huge sum of Rs.57,59,505/- from the year 2020, into the society
accounts from six individually charge-sheeted Ex- Managing Members.
The W. P. No. 747 of 2020 of J.D. to quash the charge-sheet has not yet
to be admitted. Therefore, it is prayed that :
a) to appoint a officer of the court or Court Registrar under
Order XXI Rule 34 of CPC to execute leave and licence agreement
as per the offer letter annexed on behalf of J.D, and admit
execution before Registering Authority and release the funds for
security deposit, monthly rent and brokerage for temporary
alternate accommodation till all the repairs to Flat No. 4B are
carried out and completed from already attached bank accounts
by warrant of attachment dtd. 05-03-2021.
b) additionally issue Warrant of attachment under Order XXI
Rule 46 of C.P.C against J.D and thereby attach all accounts
standing in the name of J.D with Maharashtra State Co-operative
Bank, Dadar (W) Branch, Ganesh Path Dadar, Mumbai and issue a
warrant of attachment so that sufficient funds are available for
execution of clauses 3,5 and 6 of the Order and Decree, till the
time the decree holder returns to his repaired premises.
c) Released amount of Rs.33,337/- from the attached Bank
Accounts of J.D which is due and payable to the decree holder
under the decree dtd. 13-02-2019 Clause -8 and the Bill of Costs.
d) Issue warrant of arrest under Order XXI Rule 30 r/w. Rule
38 for the J.D to be brought before this court with all convenient
speed, unless the amount which he has been ordered to pay
-- 4 of 18 --
5
together with interest thereon from 13-02-2019 and costs to
which he is liable for, be paid sooner to the decree holder until
the J.D. executes all the clauses of the order and decree in letter
and spirit.
3. Application Exh.6 is under the heading of written
arguments of decree holder in support of application dtd. 09-12-2021
for urgent interim relief . Similar pleading is there in Exh. 6 as pleaded
in application Exh.4. It is further pleaded that as per order dtd. 13-02-
2019 the J.D was directed to carry out repairs to the decree holder’s flat
within one month from the date of order at the costs of society and to
provide him temporary alternate accommodation for the purpose of
repairs in his Flat No. 4B. The J.D was directed to provide shifting costs
to the decree holders to alternate accommodation. The decree holder
cannot carry out the repairs as it requires logistical and administrative
intervention of J.D in view of Fire Brigade/ MCGM report. Due to
lackadaisical conduct of J.D to carry out the essential structural repairs,
MCGM has already washed its hand off the matter in its notice dtd. 16-
06-2021. The decree holder is 76 years old and having fragile health is
compelled to place before this court a proposed leave and licence
agreement for temporary alternate accommodation to assist in the
execution process being expedited and avert being crushed to death due
to heinous conduct of the J.D. To meet the costs of the alternate
temporary accommodation it is necessary that before the J.D. depletes
all the money from J.D's bank accounts to frustrate the award and
execution proceedings by fraud and perjury. This court be pleased to act
expeditiously and grant interim reliefs in terms of prayer Clauses a, b
and c of the application dtd. 09-12-2021.
-- 5 of 18 --
6
4. An application Exh.8 is also having similar pleadings as
application Exhs.4 and 6 and it is lastly prayed to issue warrant of arrest
under Order XXI Rule 30 r/w. Rule 31(1) and Rule 38 of CPC for J.D to
be brought up before this court with all convenient speed, unless the
amount which he has been ordered to be paid together with the interest
thereon from 13-02-2019 and costs which he has liable to be paid
sooner to decree holder and till the J.D executes all the clauses of the
order and decree in letter and spirit.
5. The J.D. opposed the applications by filing reply vide
Exh.4A, 6A and 8A, it is submitted that the decree holder filed three
applications, which seeks for issuance of warrants of arrest of JD.
Application Exh.4 prayer clause (d), application Exh.6 prayer clause (b)
and application Exh.8 prayer clause (a) the paragraph Nos. 5 to 8 of
application Exh.4 are identical to paragraphs No. 7 to 10 of application
Exh.8 and paragraphs No. 3 and 4 of application Exh.4 are prepared by
changing the order of words from paragraphs 1 and 2 of application
Exh.8 respectively. In view of above res-judicata as per Civil Procedure
Code and/or Issue Estoppel as per Code of Criminal Procedure is
applicable. Hence, applications deserves to be dismissed on this count
alone. The application is deserves to be dismissed due to non
compliance of order dtd. 25-03-2022 passed by this court within this
application Exh.4 as per Rule 11 of Order XXXIX of CPC. The decree
holder is a chronic defaulter who has not paid the opponent societies
maintenance since last 27 years and has filed unnecessary litigation
before various authorities and courts just to extract money from the
opponent society in order to set off his defaulting amounts which is
presently Rs.9,62,075/-. The decree holder has purposely stated false
things on oath in application and hence, committed perjury. The
-- 6 of 18 --
7
decree came with malafied intention, an-terior motive, unclean hands
just to harass, blackmail and extract money from the J.D. The decree
holder has suppressed the material facts from this court and thereby,
misleading the court and obtained several attachment orders without
giving an opportunity of being heard to J.D. The opportunity to decree
holder for filing the reply to the application Exh.4 was given at a later
stage i.e. after filing reply to the application for warrant of arrest.
Hence, there are few points and defensive grounds appearing in Exh.4
instead of Exh.8. So, the applications Exh.4 and 8 to be heard at same
time. The J.D. still have not given opportunity to file their reply to Exh.6
being application for warrant of arrest filed on 10-01-2022. The
affidavit of reply to Exh.8 filed by J.D, is repeated and reiterated by the
J.D society and do not repeated the same for the sake of brevity.
6. The society has not been duly and lawfully served with any
execution proceedings on or around December-2021. The J.D. for the
first time discover the pendency of present execution proceedings on or
around October-2022 and appeared for very first time and 12-10-2022
alongwith their advocate. The J.D could not appear earlier but in or
after October-2022 before this court. The decree holder misleaded the
court and obtained order of warrant of attachment of personal flat of
Anthoney Rodrigues. Anthoney Rodrigues is not the J.D. J.D is Jay
Ganesh C.H.S Ltd., which is a separate and distinct legal entity from its
office bearers under section 154B-l(20)(ix) of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1965. Personally an immovable property of an
independent person cannot be attached as he being a third person.
Therefore, order of warrant of attachment for personal Flat of Anthoney
Rodrigues is completely bad-in-law, illegal, irrational. The order dtd. 13-
02-2019 is an ex-parte order and already under challenge by way of
-- 7 of 18 --
8
Appeal No. 14/2019 before the Maharashtra State Co-operative
Appellate Court, Mumbai. Therefore, subject to outcome of said Appeal,
the J.D. cannot comply with the order dtd. 13-02-2019. The documents
Exh.B is an internal letter written by MCGM Fire Brigade Department
to the Assitt. Commissioner, G/N Ward. The J.D, has no concerned with
the said letter. The J.D. was carrying out the building repair and in the
middle of repair works being carried out, the decree holder files a
dispute on 18-03-20211 before the Maharashtra State Co-operative
Court bearing no. CC/III/41/2011 for cancellation of contract of
building repairs and also for staying repair works and for such other
reasons, thereby, delay in the building repair works. The decree holder
filed various complaints before the MCGM, Fire Brigade etc., for
pressurizing the J.D to carry out repairs of his own flat, which is very
much contrary to the dispute filed by them. The said letter Exh.B dtd.
31-05-2011 be clearly states that, “
At the time of visits it is observed
that building repair work is in progress”, which appears to be the
observations of the concerned authority. The J.D had filed police
complaint dtd. 11-08-2021 to Mahim police station. Therefore, J.D.
must not be made liable for wrong doings for decree holder himself. It is
denied that as per Fire Brigade report dtd. 03-06-2021 floor of Flat No.
4B are in danger of collapse, the risk of life of decree holder is also
danger. Exh. B is dtd. 31-05-2011, whereas Exh.C is of dtd. 12-05-2021,
which clearly shows that there is difference of 10 years and its common
logic that the property depreciates over the years. So, J.D cannot be
made liable to compensate decree holder for the property depreciation.
The decree holder taking undue advantage of its own wrong and
extracting money from J.D just to set off his 27 years outstanding
maintenance dues. The notice of MCGM dtd. 16-06-2021 is denied. The
MCGM always issued a notice under certain sections / provisions of law
-- 8 of 18 --
9
and it is always mentioned as notice since there is no section
/provisions of law it must be said that it is a letter and not the notice.
The decree holder in paragraphs-1 of Exh.8 stated that this notice has
not been served upon the decree holder. Even it is presumed that said
document is a notice then there must be a report to that effect for
raising such a notice and the same must have been duly served upon the
J.D. as well as same should have been mentioned in the said document.
The said report is neither served upon J.D. till date nor it is mentioned
in the said document. As far as question of W.P. (L) No. 973 of 2020 is
concerned, the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court by order
dtd. 24th /25th August, 2022 and there is no such order directing J.D or
carrying out repairs. The award passed by the Maharashtra State Co-
operative Appellate Court in the case No. CC/III/41/2011, is an ex-
parte Order/Award/Judgment and the same is challenged before the
Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai bearing
Appeal No.14 of 2021. Even the Appellate Co-operative Court has not
passed any such order directing the J.D. for carrying out repairs.
7. It is further submitted that J.D. was never aware about the
pendency of execution proceeding in October-2022. Further, for the first
time he came to know about the execution proceeding being pending
before this court and on 12-10-2022. He appeared through advocate.
The decree holder is in a habit to file unnecessary litigation against J.D.
Society. It is denied that W.P.(L)No.10039 of 2021 based on false
statement that all accounts of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank
are attached. The decree holder by misleading the court has taken
several orders and warrant attachments during the pandemic without
intimating the J.D. It is denied that the J.D. deplete funds from the
attached movable property and frustrate the decree holder from having
-- 9 of 18 --
10
access to sufficient funds to alternative accommodation and repairs. As
the bank account were frozen, J.D. had filed an application for interim
relief before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court for
payment of necessary and statutory dues outgoings. The Hon'ble
Appellate Court, after hearing both the sides partly allowed application
on 15-12-2021.
8. It is further submitted that Writ Petition No. 747 of 2020
has been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court by issuance of “Rule” vide
its order dtd. 17-03-2021. Vide said order petition was not only
admitted but also there is stay of all illegal proceedings before the Dy.
Registrar including a stay on charge-sheet. It is further submitted that
this court by order dtd. 25-03-2022 has directed the J.D. to file draft
leave and license agreement with respect to his Flat No. 4B alongwith
affidavit to proposed licensor. The decree holder filed application Exh.6
contending prayer clauses seeking necessary reliefs, on 10-01-2022 and
annexed therewith a draft leave and license agreement but with the
name of the J.D i.e Society as the Licensee. Hence, the said draft is
invalid. The decree holder filed affidavit Exh.7. The proposed licensor’s
affidavit dtd.27-04-2022 which was valid for 21 days. Hence, the said
affidavit is expired and decree holder failed to filed new affidavit.
Therefore, the order/directions of this court dtd.25-03-2022 stands
uncomplied. Hence, application deserves to be dismissed as per Rule 11
of Order XXXIX of CPC.
9. The J.D. made similar submissions in reply Exh.6A and 8A.
It is submitted that the attachment order /notices dtd. 05-03-2020 and
21-03-2020 were never served upon the J.D nor pasted on the house
door of Anthoney Rodrigues hence, Bailiff and clerk of this court has
-- 10 of 18 --
11
wrongly attached the personal flat of Anthoney Rodrigues, wherein Flat
No.17B the attachment orders never served upon J.D. Society. It is
denied that warrant of arrest be issued against the J.D. The decree
holder has not made out any case for warrant of arrest be issued against
J.D.. The decree holder as miserably held to constituted any case for
warrant of arrest to of J.D. The decree holder misleaded the court and
taken attachment orders ex-parte. The decree holder suppressed the
material facts from this court. The Magistrate Court at Shindewadi has
dismissed the decree holder's complaint for urgent repairs in Writ
Petition No. (L) 18189/2021. The decree holder prayed that BMC
should repair their flat. If, decree holder wanted to BMC repair their flat
as prayed in aforesaid Writ Petition then the present execution
proceeding completely false as in present execution the decree holder
has prayed that the J.D. society to repair the flat. The decree holder has
came before this court with malafide intention, just to harass, blackmail
and extract money from J.D. He is a chronic defaulter who has not paid
opponent society's maintenance since last 27 years and filed
unnecessary litigation before the various Authorities and Court just to
extract money. It is therefore prayed that application Exhs.4,6 and 8 be
dismissed with costs.
10. Perused application, reply, record and heard both the sides.
It is not in dispute that the decree holder filed a proceeding before the
Co-operative Court Case No.CC/III/41/2011. The Co-operative Court
allowed the dispute with costs against society. The Co-operative Court
declared demand notice against the decree holder for Rs.1,26,013/- and
awarding structure repairs construct of Rs.45,00,000/- to Ms. M.A.
Chouan is unfair, unreasonable and bad in law not valid and not
binding on this court. The Co-operative Court further directed to carry
-- 11 of 18 --
12
out repairs mentioned in letter dtd.06-10-2012 at the costs of society
within one month. The society was also directed to remove debris
forthwith which was lying outside the disputant flat. It is also directed
to provide alternative accommodation to the disputant's for the purpose
of repairs carried out in his Flat No.4B. Shifting costs was also granted.
It was also directed to the society to remove illegal car parking in the
premises of society. It is also directed to pay costs of Architect Fees of
Rs.15,000/-, Consultant Engineer’s Fees of Rs.11,800/- , Water Pipelines
repair charges of Rs.1615/- and Pest Control treatment charges
Rs.2472/- to Total amount of Rs.30,887/- to the disputant. The society
was also directed to pay costs.
11. The execution and above all the prayers have been
opposed by the J.D. on various grounds. As per J.D by order dtd. 25-03-
2022 it was directed to furnish draft leave and license agreement
alongwith affidavit which was not complied by the decree holder.
Therefore, the applications deserves to be dismissed as per Rule 11 of
Order XXXIX of the CPC. The above submissions of the J.D. can not be
accepted. The application for execution proceeding cannot be dismissed
for non compliance of the said order. The Order XXXIX of CPC deals
with the interim reliefs and Rule 11 is deals with the consequences, if
the directions which are passed under the said order are not complied
by the parties. Further, objection of J.D. is that the similar prayers has
been made by the decree holder in applications Exhs. 4, 6 and 8.
Therefore, as per him, the said applications are hit by Section 11 of the
CPC i.e principle of res-judicata. The said submissions of the J.D also
cannot be accepted because the principle of res-judicata applied when
the issue already decided. In the present case the applications are
having made similar prayers but the prayers are not decided . Hence,
-- 12 of 18 --
13
the principle of res-judicata not came in picture. It is further objection
by the Ld. Counsel for J.D that the decree holder by filing W. P. No.(L)
18189 of 2021 before the Hon’ble High Court prayed for directing BMC
to repair the flat. Therefore, as per him the decree became infructous.
The said submissions of J.D. is also cannot be accepted. The decree is
passed against the J.D. by the Co-operative Court. It is not set aside by
the Appellate Court that decree is still existing and it is necessary to be
executed. The decree holder are entitled for the relief granted by the
Co-operative Court in the said decree.
12. By way of application Exh.4 the decree holder prayed
for appointment of Officer of Court or Registrar to execute the leave and
licence agreement as per offer letter Exh.G. In this regard, it is the
statement of Ld. Counsel for J.D that the alternative accommodation
already occupied by the decree holder and the order to pay the rent
and other charges of occupied premises is already passed below Exh.15.
Therefore, the prayer clause in Exh.4 is now become infructuous, The
said fact is admitted by the decree holder and it also can be seen from
the order Exh.15 that the alternative accommodation is already been
occupied by the decree holder. The prayer clause (b ) of the Exh.4 is in
respect of attachment of accounts standing in the name of J.D. It is seen
from the record that the account which is mentioned in the prayer
clause (a) already attached as per Bailiff report dtd. 25-02-2021. Two
accounts of the society are already attached. The decree holder prayed
for the accounts mentioned in the column (j) of the amended
application. Already two accounts of the society are attached. In order
to satisfy the decree whether the amount lying in the said account is
sufficient and/or not that has to be seen. If, the amount attached as
above is sufficient to satisfy the decree then there will be no need to
-- 13 of 18 --
14
attach other accounts of J.D. Therefore, it is necessary to issue letter to
the concerned bank directing to supply the information as to how much
amount is lying in the said bank accounts. The prayer Clause (c.) is in
respect of release of amount of Rs.33,337/- from the attached bank
accounts, which is payable as per Clause-8 of award. It is seen from the
order below Exh.15 that the said amount mentioned in the clause-8 is
included in order Exh-15 and application Exh-18 is pending for release
of amount granted by Exh.15 is pending. Therefore, prayer clause (c.)
of Exh.4 also cannot be allowed as the said prayer is included in order
Exh.15. The decree holder in Exh.6 prayed for appointment of court
officer who release the amount of Rs.33,337/-, for the reasons discussed
above, prayers in Exh.6 also cannot be granted being infructuous.
13. The prayer (b) of Exh.4 is for arresting J.D. under
Order XXI Rule 38 of CPC. Similar prayer is there in Exh.8. It is the
submission of the Ld. Counsel for the decree holder that the decree is
pending for execution and it is to be executed immediately. The J.D.
inspite of the decree is trying to avoid the execution by filing the various
applications. The decree be executed immediately as the decree holder
is a Senior Citizen. In support of her submissions Ld. Counsel for decree
holder relied upon the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rameshwari Devi and others V/s. Nirmala Devi, 2011 8 SCC 249,
wherein it has been held that,
“A Civil suit- Abuse of process of court- Dilatory
tactics- Consequent harassment of opposite party, wastage
of court’s time and benefit to wrongdoer under existing
system of administration of civil litigation- Wrongdoer
should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation- steps for
improving the system- Penal costs, mesne profits and
-- 14 of 18 --
15
prosecution for perjury.
- Prolonging trial by creating obstacles by making frivolous
applications or filling forged documents with motive of
avoding dispossession of unauthorised persons
(defendants) from immovable property of plaintiff – Even if
wrongdoers are ultimately evicted from property by court
after a long lapse of time, they are generally adequately
punished- Thus there is an inherent gain or incentive for
wrongdoers under present system which requires to be
eliminated”.
It is further observed that,
“It should impose actual;, realistic and proper costs on
wrongdoers, grant mesne profits at market rate to affected
party and also order prosecution of wrongdoer for perjury
in appropriate cases- Principle of restitution should be fully
applied”.
14. On the contrary it is the submission of Ld. Counsel for JD
is that the J.D. is having health issue and was admitted in hospital. It is
further submitted that bank accounts of J.D society already attached,
Therefore, he is not having funds. In support of his submission the Ld.
Counsel for J.D relied upon case law Jolly George Varghese and another
V/s. The Bank of Cochin, (1980) 2 SCC 360, it has been held that,
“ In execution of money decrees, the executing court
ordered for attachment of all immovable properties of the
appellant judgment-debtor and appointment of Receiver for
management of the attached properties and also issued
warrant of his arrest and detention in civil prison under
-- 15 of 18 --
16
section 51 and Order 21, Rule 37, C.P.C. The court passed
these orders forbidding the enjoyment or even the power to
alienate the properties by the judgment-debtor, without
however, making any investigation regarding the current
ability of the judgment-debtors to clear off the debts or
their mala fide refusal, if any, to discharge the debts. The
High Court, in a short order, summarily dismissed the
revision filed by the judgment-debtor against the order of
arrest”.
15. The notice was issued as per order dtd. 23-08-2022 under
Order XXI Rule 37 of CPC the said notice is served to J.D. It is seen that
the notice was served to Anthoney Rodrigues who is current Secretary
of the society. The decree is in respect of carrying out repairs and
payment of money. Already Flat No.17-B, Ganesh Bhavan, Senapati
Bapat Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 is attached under the present
execution proceedings. Two bank accounts of the society are already
attached. The Anthoney Rodrigues is acting as a Secretary on behalf of
the society. As discussed above, the flat ie, immovable property and the
bank accounts of the society are already attached under execution. By
way of order Exh.15 my Ld. Predecessor already directed to pay
Rs.9,09,287/- to the decree holder. In such circumstances, issuance of
warrant of arrest of Secretary will not just and proper. Arresting of a
person is a harsh remedy which is to be done as a last resort. Already
bank accounts are attached. Therefore, it is necessary to inquired with
bank whether the amount lying in the accounts of J.D is sufficient to
satisfy the decree. Thereafter, after exhausting remedy in respect of the
movable and immovable property further steps of arrest cane be
resorted too. In such circumstance, at this stage not be proper to dispose
-- 16 of 18 --
17
off the application Exh.8 and it is required to be kept pending till
further proceeding in respect of movable and immovable property
which already attached. Considering all the above discussed aspects , I
proceed to pass following order:
-ORDER-
1. Issue letter to the concerned Bank directing to inform this court
as to how much amount is lying in the accounts of Judgment
Debtor Society, which are already attached under the present
Execution Proceedings.
2. Application Exh.8 seeking arrest of Judgment Debtor be kept
pending.
(A.K.Kale)
Ad-Hoc Judge
& Assistant Sessions Judge
City Civil Court,
Date :23-04-2024 Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 15-04-2024 and 23-04-2024
Typed on : 16-04-2024 and 24-04-2024
Checked and Signed on : 02-05-2024.
-- 17 of 18 --
18
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
02-05-2024. 12..15 p.m. K.M.Rana
Name of the Judge (with Court Room
no.63)
HHJ Shri A.K.KALE
(Court Room No.63).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 23-04-2024
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 02-05-2024.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 02-05-2024.
-- 18 of 18 --