1 CHS324.09.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 324 OF 2009 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 234 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO. 1700 OF 2001 Sachin Dinesh Rawal. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Satkar Electronics Ltd. ... Defendants. And Ketan Koradia & Anr. ... Applicants. Mr. R.S. Tripathi for the Plaintiff. Mr. G.C. Mohanty i/b. M/s. Mohanty & Associates for the Applicants. None for the Defendants. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 02nd FEBRUARY 2011. P.C. :- This Chamber Summons is taken out by the Applicants claiming to be the owner of the flat more particularly described in prayer clause (b) for raising of the attachment. Prayer clause (a) is for condonation of delay in taking out a Chamber Summons. Prayer clause (c) is for damages. Affidavit in reply is filed on record. 2 CHS324.09.sxw 2. I have heard learned Counsels on both sides. According to the Applicants, the Applicants purchased the said flat mentioned in prayer clause (b) from M/s. Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. on account of action initiated by M/s. Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The said flat was purchased by the Applicants for a consideration of Rs.22,76,000/-. The said sale certificate came to be registered under the Indian Registration Act in 2006. This will go to show that the said flat was purchased by the Applicants in the year 2006 and they became the owner of the said flat. The decree in the present Suit was filed on 5th February 2003 and the warrant of attachment was issued in 2008 and it was levied in 2009. It is noticed that in addition to the sale certificate and the document of handing over possession to the Applicants by the Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd., the Applicants have relied upon a share certificate concerning the said society standing in the name of Satkar Video Pvt. Ltd. and that the share certificate is duly transferred in favour of the Applicants. 3 CHS324.09.sxw 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants had contended that on account of the sale certificate in the name of the Applicants in the year 2006, the Applicants became the owner of the said flat and therefore, it could not have been attached in execution of the decree passed against M/s. Satkar Electronics Ltd. He submitted that warrant of attachment should be raised. 4. Learned Counsel Mr. Mohanty appearing on behalf of the Applicants submitted that if the Court is inclined to raise the warrant of attachment, the Applicants shall not press for damages as prayed for in terms of prayer clause (c). 5. Learned Counsel Mr. Tripathi appearing on behalf of the Claimants submitted that the Applicants themselves have come out with a document viz. share certificate standing in the name of Satkar Video Pvt. Ltd. which is different from Satkar Electronics Ltd. and therefore, the Applicants have not conclusively proved that the said flat is purchased by them. According to him, the Applicants have not placed appropriate documents in support of their case that they are the owner of 4 CHS324.09.sxw the said flat. 6. I have considered the record. The said flat was owned by Satkar Electronics Ltd. To my mind, the share certificate issued in favour of Satkar Video Pvt. Ltd. has relevance to the present transaction. I have perused the documents. Share certificate at page 18 of the Chamber Summons shows that the said premises bearing No.B-201 were standing in the name of Satkar Video Pvt. Ltd. This will go to show that the said flat was owned by Satkar Video Pvt. Ltd. and not by Satkar Electronics Ltd. Reading the share certificate, it is very clear that for the loan liability of the Defendants i.e. the Satkar Electronics Ltd., the said flat was sold. If this be so, it is clear that the flat which was owned by Satkar Viedo Pvt. Ltd. got sold and therefore, it is clear that the said flat was not owned by Satkar Electronics Ltd. If this is the position, there was no question of attachment of the said flat for the decree passed against Satkar Electronics Ltd. 7. In view of the above, I am inclined to allow the Chamber Summons. 5 CHS324.09.sxw 8. On hearing this, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants says that his clients are not pressing relief in terms of prayer clause (c). 9. Hence, following order is passed :- (i) Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (ii) Chamber Summons is allowed to be withdrawn so far as prayer clause (c) is concerned. (iii) Warrant of attachment levied on the said flat stands vacated. (iv) The Plaintiff to pay poundage charges as per the Rules within 15 days from today. (v) Chamber Summons is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)