1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NO.1842 OF 2008 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.330 OF 2008 Nishkalp Investment & Trading Co. Ltd. .. Claimants Versus M/s.S.P.Motors & Ors. .. Respondents and Kotak Mahindra Investments Ltd. .. Applicants Mr.B.G.Saraf i/b. Shreeji & Lal for plaintiffs Mr.M.S.Gyani for respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 5th March 2009. P.C. . The execution application in which this notice is moved is filed by the claimants, Nishkalp Investment and Trading Company Ltd. The applicant before this Court is M/s.Kotak Mahindra Investment Ltd. It is stated by the applicant that under the Deed of Assignment executed by Nishkalp in its favour on 21st March 2006, all 2 debts mentioned in the schedule to the deed of assignment have been assigned in favour of the applicant, giving it full power and authority to recover the amounts from the debtors and make them over to the assignor in such proportion as is stated therein. 2. Mr.Saraf states that in terms of this deed of assignment and the award passed by the Arbitrator being filed in Court so also further in terms of section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 it becomes decree of this Court, that this notice under Order XXI Rule 16 of C.P.C. is moved. The relief prayed is that the assignees/ purchasers/ applicants be permitted to execute this decree. 3. The execution application is pending. This notice is opposed by the first respondent on three grounds. Firstly, the applicants are Kotak Mahindra Investment Ltd. whereas there is 3 another company called Kotak Mahindra Investments Ltd. Mr.Saraf has taken instructions and has made a statement that the deed of assignment mentions, Kotak Mahindra Investments Ltd. having its registered office at 88-A, Nariman Bhavan, 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 as the Assignee/Applicant and it is that company which shall be referred to as the Assignee by him and none else. In the light of this statement, the first objection does not survive. 4. The second objection is that the deed of assignment purports to mention that the assignee has taken over the assignors’ rights for a sum of Rs.21.50 lakhs. This is a meagre sum and, therefore, the deed of assignment is not some thing which should be accepted by this Court. It is a nominal or sham document. 5. I do not see how these objections can be raised in answer to the notice. 4 6. The consideration and assignment under clause 2 of the Deed of Assignment, a copy of which is produced by Mr.Saraf for my perusal, states that in consideration of the assignment, upfront, being the fixed portion of purchase price of Rs.21.50 lakhs, the Assignor unconditionally and absolutely assigning the right, title, interest and benefits in and to the debts and incidental rights thereto together with other benefits, to the Assignee. Thus, Debts have been assigned. However, clause 2.1 states that further consideration is that the assignee agreeing to pay the contingent portion of the purchase price. Clause 2.1.1 states that the balance portion of the fixed portion of the price is being paid with the execution of the agreement. As to what arrangement there is between the assignees and assignee is something which this Court cannot probe. More so, at the instance of the judgement debtor who owes monies 5 to the original claimants. The original claimant Nishkalp have not come forward and challenged any of these clauses. In these circumstances, the second objection also is without any merits. 7. The third objection is that the applicants are mere Benamidars. Even this objection turns upon the agreement between the original claimants and the assignees. The original claimant is not questioning the same. It does not term it as any paper arrangement. In these circumstances, I am of the view that Order XXI Rule 16, as applicable in the State of Maharashtra stands satisfied. Notice is accordingly made absolute. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)