1 50 chs 1390.2009.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION srk CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1390 OF 2009 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 623 OF 2001 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1153 OF 1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. ..Plaintiff. vs. Creative Advertising & Marketing Promotion Agency ..Defendant. And Baldevkrishan Sharma HUF ..Applicant .... Mr.Vinayak Shete a/w Mr. Amol Joshi i/b Poorvi Kamani for the plaintiff. Mr. Vikas Singh i/b Lambay & Co. for Applicant, in support of chamber summons. .... CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2010 P. C. 1. Heard. 2. By this Chamber Summons the applicant prays for vacating the attachment of the property bearing Flat no. 106 of 2 50 chs 1390.2009.doc Kakad Udyog Bhavan, L.J. Road, Mahim, Mumbai 400 016 (for short ‘said Flat’). 3. The case of the applicant is that the said flat belongs to him and does not belong to the defendant-judgment debtor and therefore, plaintiff has no right to attach the said flat in execution of a decree passed in Suit no. 1153 of 1998. 4. The plaintiff filed the Suit no.1153 of 1998 against Creative Advertising and Marketing Promotion Agency. The suit was decreed. The decree remained unsatisfied. The plaintiff therefore filed an execution petition for execution of the decree and has attached the said flat. 5. By filing the Chamber Summons the applicant has contended that he is not the proprietor of the Creative Advertising and Marketing Promotion Agency, the defendant herein, and therefore his properties cannot be attached. In paragraph 14 of the affidavit-in-reply, the plaintiff has specifically stated that the applicant is the proprietor of the 3 50 chs 1390.2009.doc defendant and was incharge and responsible for the day to day affairs of the defendant. The plaintiff has also annexed with the affidavit a copy of the registration form which was submitted by the defendant to the plaintiff prior to the filing of the suit and on the basis of which credit facility was offered by the plaintiff to the defendant. In the said form, it is clearly stated that Creative Advertising and Marketing Promotion Agency was a proprietary concern and applicant was the proprietor thereof. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder denying the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply. The applicant has also not denied the submission of the registration form by him, a copy of which is attached to the affidavit- in-reply. In the circumstances, it is clear that the applicant is and at the relevant time was the proprietor of the defendant. 6 When a person carries on business in a trade name or any assumed name, the person can be sued in the said trade name. A decree passed in the trade name, is binding not only on the assets belonging to the business carried on in the trade name but also on the person who is carrying on business on the said trade name. 4 50 chs 1390.2009.doc 7. In the circumstances, the decree passed in Suit no. 1153 of 1998 against the trade name is binding on the applicant who is the proprietor of the business and the decree can be executed against him. So viewed, the attachment cannot be said to be wrongly effected. Hence, Chamber Summons is dismissed. [ D.G. KARNIK, J. ]