:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1395 OF 2006 SUMMONS NO. 1395 OF 2006 SUMMONS NO. 1395 OF 2006 IN IN IN EXECUTION EXECUTION EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 364 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO. 364 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO. 364 OF 2006 IN IN IN SURAT SURAT SURAT SUMMARY SUIT NO. 71 OF SUMMARY SUIT NO. 71 OF SUMMARY SUIT NO. 71 OF 2002 2002 2002 The Udhna Citizen Co-op. Bank Ltd. ... Plaintiffs/ Judgment Creditor. V/s. M/s. Home Trade Ltd. ... Defendants/ Judgment Debtor. And Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. ... Applicant. Mr. P.C. Mankad for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Rambhadran for the Defendants. Mr. S. Divekar i/b. Wadia Ghandy for the Applicant. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 16TH 16TH 16TH FEBRUARY 2009. FEBRUARY 2009. FEBRUARY 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . This is Applicant’s Chamber Summons for raising the Warrant of Attachment. The Applicant is the Bombay Stock Exchange. It states that the Warrant of Attachment purports to attach deposits lying in the Exchange which are allegedly due and payable to the Judgment Debtor. 2. In the affidavit in support, the Stock Exchange has referred to the Bye laws and SEBI Guidelines and has contended that identical relief was claimed earlier by a Chamber Summons which was not granted. Secondly, the Judgment Debtor’s membership rights have come to an end as :2: on 16th August 2002 and the said rights vest in the Exchange. It is pointed out that the Exchange was served with three attachment notices by the Income Tax Authorities, SEBI claims and other Exchange Creditors. There are no surplus funds the Defendants which can be attached. 3. Mr. Mankad, appearing for the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor does not seriously dispute this. All that is said that the liability under other claims, is still not crystalized, therefore, it is permissible in law to have the subject attachment. 4. It is not possible to agree with Mr. Mankad as the order passed on the earlier occasion cannot be construed to mean that the rights of the Exchange to proceed against the defaulter are in any way affected or that the Exchange cannot take cognizance of the Warrant of Attachment issued by Income Tax and other Authorities. In such circumstances and when it is doubtful as to whether any amounts allegedly lying, could be said to be property of the Judgment Debtor, then, the subject attachment cannot be sustained. The Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)