'ill %27.07.2006 Present: Mr.RajivEndlawwith Ms.Bhartifor the; plaintiff Mr.S.C.Dhandafor the defendant ' +CS(OS) No.2373/1997 * 1. Plaintiff claims that the defendant is! its debtor and to recover the sum a suit has been filed befpre the Court of competent jurisdiction in the United Kingdom. 2. Fearing that the defendant would $eii his immovable i I property bearing No.B-22, Gitanjali Enclave, I^ew Delhi, prayer ! / made is to restrain the defendants from selling, transferring, alienating or parting with possession of property bearing No.B-22, I Gitanjali Enclave, New Delhi till final adjudication of the recovery proceedings initiated in the United Kingdom. 3. Plaint was subsequently amended to pray that since suit in United Kingdom has been decreed, till decree, injunction as prayed should enure. ^ 4. Decree obtained by the plaintiff in boughtto be executedthroughthis Court vide No.73/2000. CSfOS; No.2373/1997 satisfaction of the United Kingdom is Execution Petition Pg. 1 of 2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified r ^^5 5. Mr.S.C.Dhanda learned counsel for the defendant states that at the moment defendant is not desirous of selling the suit property. Mr.Dhandha states that till the disposal of the execution petition No.73/2000 defendant would not sell, transfer, alienate or create third party rights qua property bearing No..B-22, Gitanjali Enclave, New Delhi-17. 6. Taking on record the statement made by Mr.Dhanda on behalf of the defendant, the suit stands disposed of decreeing that till Execution Petition No.73/2000 pending in this Court is decided the defendant would not transfer, alienate, encumber or part possession with property bearing No..B-22, Gitanjali Enclave, New Delhi. 7. No costs. 8. It is stated that certain documents filed in the present suit would be required when Execution Petition No.73/2000 is decided. 9. It is accordingly decided that file of the suit be retained ^d be taggedon with ExecutionPetitionNo.73/2000. T=pni- July 27, 2006 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J. vg CS(OS) No.2373/1997 Pg. 2 of 2 %27.07.2006 Present: Mr.RajivEndlawwith Ms.Bhartifor the Decree Holder Mr.S.C.Dhanda for the Judgment Debtor 1^/lr.K.S.Parihar with Ivir.H.S.Parihar for RBI & +EX.P.NO.73/2000 * 1. Learned counsel for RBI states that he has been instructed to inform the court that no permission/sanction is 4. required by the decree holder for filing the execution petition nor is any sanction/permission required for making any recovery. ^ However, if decree holderwould be remittingmoneyoutsideIndia, then at that stage RBI sanction would be required. 2. Mr.Dhanda states that the stand taken by RBI is incorrect. 3. The judgment debtor is not the custodian of the finances of this country. Surely, the Ministry of Finance has not f appointedthe judgmentdebtor as its advisor. Itake on recordthe stand of R.B.I. 4. Vide order dated 9th November, 2005 court notice was issued to RBI limited to ascertain the stand of RBI. Since stand of RBI has come on record, I proceed ahead with the execution petition. Ex.P.No.73/2000 Pg. 1 of 2 5 Learned counsel for the judgment debtor states that appeal has been filed against the order dated 9.11.2005. Stay was not sought for for the reason none was required as stand of RBI was not clear. Since RBI has taken a stand aforenoted, he intends to seek a stay from the appellate court. 6. I am informed that the appeal is listed on 8.8.2006. 7. Renotify for 29.9.2006. "vr ¥=TrY''" iy July 27, 2006 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J. vg Ex.P.No.73/2000 Pg. 2 of2