1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1632 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.3844 OF 1999 M/s.Marine Container Services (India) Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. .. Plaintiffs Versus Dhirajlal Hakimchand Vora .. Defendant and Hakinchand B. Vora (HUF) & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.C.Ardeshar i/b. Bilawala & Co. for plaintiffs Mr.R.Shah i/b. Raval Shah for defendant Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 14th October 2008 P.C. . This is a chamber summons taken out in execution by the decree holder. An apprehension is expressed in the affidavit in support and the further affidavit is that the order dated 21st March 2001 attaches Flat No.151/B, Maker Tower, G.D.Somani Marg, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai. Despite 2 this attachment, the flat is sought to be transferred. The apprehension is that the decree passed cannot then be enforced and executed as this is a valuable property. The decree is in the sum of Rs.4.73 Crores. In such circumstances, if the right, title and interest of the judgement debtor is transferred or if respondent No.1 Hakimchand Vora (HUF) deals with the property, that will defeat the decree. According to the affidavit in support, the defendant and his son Rajesh Vora are the only members of Respondent No.1 HUF. In para 7 of the affidavit, it is stated that Mr.Rajesh Vora has been declared Insolvent by an order passed by Insolvency Court. Further, plaintiffs learnt that an attempt to sell the property was made and there is correspondence with purchaser’s Advocate. In such circumstances, Mr.Ardeshir seeks relief in terms of prayer clause (c) of the motion. He also invites my attention to the further affidavit filed on 26th March 2007. 3 2. Mr.Shah appears for the Defendant J.D.. Mr.Shah tenders an affidavit in reply of defendant and states that Dhirajlal Vora is present in court and has instructed him to make a statement that the he is also declared insolvent by this Court. 3. My attention is invited to para 3 of the affidavit in reply and Mr.Shah contends that it sufficiently protects interest of the plaintiff decree holder. 4. After having perused the chamber summons and the affidavit in support and reply and noticing that the judgement debtor takes a stand that he is not the only member of HUF and there are 30 others so also the categorical stand in his affidavit that the flat stands in the name of HUF and maintenance and other charges are paid by HUF, then, the statement made on behalf of 4 judgement debtor in para 3 would not suffice. Mr.Ardeshir is right in his contention that the property may be dealt with by the HUF and injunction order should, therefore, be passed. The statement does not mean that prayer clause (c) is granted. 5. The HUF is duly served and there is affidavit filed of service. In such circumstances and when no affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and the flat is standing in its name, it would be just, fair so also in the interest of justice if prayer clause (c) is granted. 6. A strong prima facie case is made out insofar as issuance of injunction order. Balance of convenience is also in favour of plaintiff- decree holder. In such circumstances, the society needs to be restrained insofar as permitting any transfer of Flat No.151-B, Maker 5 Tower, G.D.Somani Marg, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai. Even the society is duly served. Hence, the chamber summons is disposed of by following order:- "Respondent No.2, Maker Towers Coop.Society Ltd. Mumbai not to permit or allow transfer of Flat No.151-B, Maker Tower, G.D.Somani Marg, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005 or any part thereof until further orders of this Court." (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)