E .S.A No. 4304 of 2004 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH E.S.A No. 4304 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision : January 07, 2010 Food Corporation of India, District Office Hoshiarpur ...... Appellant (s) v. M/S Doaba Steel Rolling Mills Private Limited Mandi Gobindgarh and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Indu Bali, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned first appellate Court dated 2.8.2004 setting aside the attachment of the property of respondent No.1 on the ground that respondent No.1 was neither a party nor a judgment debtor and that its property could not have been attached to satisfy a decree against respondents No.2 to 8. On 15.1.2007, the following order was passed in C.M No.8953- C of 2006 :- E .S.A No. 4304 of 2004 (O&M) ::2:: “ The present civil miscellaneous application has been moved for modification of order dated 24.7.2006 which reads as under :- `Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Courts below have failed to notice that the property of the firm was transferred in the name of the company by passing a resolution and thereafter on the basis of a decree of the Civil Court the property was transferred in the name of the company which is in fact for the benefits of the directors and not for the company. The findings of the courts below prima facie show that the partners, who were judgment debtors, have incorporated this company by converting the firm into company and thereafter the property of the firm was transferred in the name of the company to avoid execution of the decree against them. The matter needs consideration. Admitted. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1 is restrained from alienating the property to any third party. However, it is made clear that the respondents would continue their business E .S.A No. 4304 of 2004 (O&M) ::3:: and only immovable assets of the firm shall not be transferred.' The only ground on which the modification is sought at the time of arguments is that the applicant-respondents are prepared to furnish a Bank guarantee to satisfy the decree in the event of the success of this appeal. The offer made is fair and just, accordingly the order dated 24.7.2006 is modified and liberty is granted to furnish an unconditional irrevocable guarantee for a sum of Rs.20,90,640/- (rupees twenty lac ninety thousand six hundred and forty only) in favour of the petitioner. On furnishing of the said bank guarantee the order restraining the respondents applicant from alienating the property to third party shall stand vacated.” Counsel for the appellant has, however, argued that no bank guarantee was furnished in response to the above order. Be that as it may, as far as respondent No.1 is concerned, the position is that either the property is under restraint or an amount of Rs.20 lacs belonging to it has been blocked. Further, it has to be established whether in fact respondent No.1 is liable to pay the debts of the judgment debtors. In my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice, if the execution is allowed to proceed and a direction is issued to the executing Court to decide the same within a reasonable time. Of-course, the plea of respondent No.1 that it is not liable to pay the debts of the judgment debtors E .S.A No. 4304 of 2004 (O&M) ::4:: would also be considered by the learned executing Court. In the circumstances, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the learned executing Court to decide the execution application in the terms mentioned above, within a period of nine months from the date the parties appear before it. Till such time as the execution is decided, the order dated 15.1.2007 will continue in operation. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the executing Court on 1.2.2010. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 07, 2010. JUDGE `kk'