1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.515 OF 2007 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.30 OF 2007 IN BELGAUM ORIGINAL SUIT NO.107 OF 1992 Suman W/o. Mohan R. Bajikar ...Plaintiff Vs. Suyuki Engineers Pvt. Ltd. ...Defendant And Suresh Umeshrao Honavar ...Applicant Mr.Divesh Chamboowala for Plaintiff Mr. C.N. Mehta for Applicant in Ch.S. CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. 1. The Plaintiff has sought to execute the decree in the above Suit by attachment of the movable as well as immovable properties of the Defendant. Upon the attachment, the Applicant has taken out this Chamber Summons to raise the attachment on the ground that the properties, both movable and immovable do not belong to the Defendant, but to the Applicant. 2. The Applicant is the Director/Managing Director of the 2 Defendant Company. The Applicant has produced the share certificate standing in his name in respect of the immovable property attached. The share certificate is dated 1st June, 1960 in respect of 29 shares bearing Nos.4986 to 5014. Another share certificate is dated 21 st April, 1960 for one share No.4921. The Applicant has produced the certificate of Sinking Fund and other receipts of the Co-operative Society dated 13 th June, 1960 and 30 th June, 1978. The Applicant has also produced certain electricity bills and his bank account which do not relate to the title of the immovable property at all. 3. Upon the Applicant's claim that he is the title holder in respect of the immovable property and not the Defendant, the Applicant must produce the document of title in his name. No such document is produced. The Applicant claims to have purchased the flat. No sale under Section 54 of the Transfer of Properties Act can be complete without a registered document of title, if the property is more than Rs.100/- . Hence, the Applicant has not shown him to be having any title in respect of the immovable property. 4. The documents shown by the Applicant do not show his title under any registered document. They show the charges paid to the Society and the shares held in the Society where 3 the flat is situated. 5. The Applicant has produced absolutely nothing to show his title to any movable properties also attached under the document in execution of the decree in the above Suit. 6. Since the Applicant is the Director/Managing Director of the Defendant Company, he was called upon to produce the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company to see whether the suit premises stated to be standing in the name of the Applicant have been used as the premises of the Company. The Memorandum and the Articles of Association of the Company are not produced. The domicile clause of the Company cannot be seen. Whether the property claimed by the Applicant has been used as the property of the Company is not shown. The share certificates do not show the provisions showing any transfers in respect of the shares held by the Applicant. Hence, the transfer, if any, made in favour of the Company by the Applicant is also not shown. 7. All that the Applicant has produced is a xerox copy of the certificate of incorporation No.40309 of 1986 in respect of the Defendant Company. This would be a part of the Memorandum of Articles of Association of the Company. 4 However, the entire document is not produced. 8. The Plaintiff has sought to collect the particulars of the Defendant Company on the Website of the Registrar of the Companies. The Website shows that no document of the Company statutorily required to be filed with the Registrar of Companies is filed. The Company is stated to be having the status as “strike off”. In such a situation the liabilities of the Directors would become unlimited since the Creditors would not be able to enforce their claim against the Company which is struck off from the list of the Registrar of Companies. 9. Consequently the Applicant has neither shown title in his name nor shown how he is separate from the legal entity i.e. Private Limited Company of which he is the Director/Managing Director. 10. It is argued on behalf of the Applicant that the stay of execution was granted in Appeal from the Judgment in the above Suit. The initial stay was granted on 26 th October, 2005, that was for a period of one month. After the expiry of one month the Plaintiff has sought to execute the decree and levy the attachment. The attachment levied is, therefore, not 5 during the period of stay. After the attachment was levied there is a further order of stay of the Appeal Court. However, after the further order of the stay of the Appeal Court the Plaintiffs have not proceeded in execution. 11. This Court as the executing Court is only called upon to see whether the attachment was levied outside the period of stay and whether it was correctly levied. The attachment is not shown to be within the period of stay granted by the Court i.e. High Court of Bangalore, Karnataka. The Applicant has not shown any title to be entitled to raise the attachment levied. Hence, the Chamber Summons is dismissed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)