Calcutta High Court
Cj Darcl Logistics Ltd vs Satyendra Singh And Ors on 21 August, 2023
Author: Ravi Krishan Kapur
Bench: Ravi Krishan Kapur
OD-38
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
EC/338/2019
IA NO: GA/2/2023, GA/3/2023
CJ DARCL LOGISTICS LTD.
VS
SATYENDRA SINGH AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Date : 21st August, 2023.
Appearance:
Mr. Billwadal Bhattahcaryya, Adv.
Mr. Suman Ganguly, Adv.
Mr. Sayak Chakraborti, Adv.
Mr. S. Das, Adv.
..for the award-holder
Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Ayan Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Rajib Mullick, Adv.
Ms. Sonia Mukherjee, Adv.
...for the respondents
The Court : This is an application for execution of a decree dated 20th September, 2018. By the decree, the award-debtors have been directed to pay the award-holder a sum of Rs.3,15,62,923/- alongwith interest at 24% per annum from 1st February, 2017 to till the date of realization.
Thereafter, by an order dated 8th March, 2019, passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi, the decree stood transferred to this Court.
This application has been filed by the award-debtors, inter alia, contending that this Court has no jurisdiction. It is submitted on behalf of the award-debtors that the only immovable property which the award-holder 2 had referred to is situated at premises no. 50B, Sastitola Road, Kolkata- 700011 which is outside the jurisdiction of this Court. It is also submitted that the said immovable property falls within the jurisdiction of the Sealdah Civil and Criminal Court, South 24-Parganas. In support of their contention, the judgment-debtors relies on Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the decision reported in Srei Equipment and Finance Pvt. Ltd. vs. Khyoda Apik and Others AIR (2016) Cal 293.
On behalf of the decree-holder, it is submitted that the decree has been transferred pursuant to an order dated 8th March, 2019, passed by the High Court at Delhi which was the original Court where the execution proceeding had been filed. There is no appeal against the order dated 8th March, 2019 and the same has attained finality. It is also contended on behalf of the award-holder that by an order dated 17th July, 2023, the judgment-debtors had sought for time to file their Affidavit of Assets.
Admittedly, order dated 8th March, 2019 passed by the High Court at Delhi transferring the decree dated 20 September 2018 has attained finality. By the decree, there is a sum of approximately Rs.8 crores which has become due and payable by the award-debtors to the award-holder.
This Court has assumed jurisdiction pursuant to the order of transfer. Thereafter, by orders dated 17th July, 2023 and 8th August, 2023, the judgment-debtors had categorically sought for an opportunity to file their Affidavit of Assets. It is true that the situs of the particular immovable property belonging to the judgment-debtors is outside the jurisdiction of this Court. However, the jurisdiction to direct filing of an Affidavit of Assets and for examination of the judgment-debtors in terms of the Order 21 Rule 41 of 3 the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is always available to this Court for the purpose of ascertaining whether the judgment debtor has any assets within the jurisdiction of this Court or not. In Srei Equipment and Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Khyoda Apik and Ors. AIR 2016 Cal 293 it has been held as follows:
"45. Examination of a judgment debtor under Order 21, Rule 41 is resorted to when the award holder is not aware of the assets and properties of the judgment-debtor, which might be available for satisfaction of the award. The judgment-debtor is examined to ascertain what properties or means the judgment-debtor can only be ascertained after examination of the judgment-debtor. The question of transfer to a Court having jurisdiction over the properties of the judgment-debtor could not arise at the stage of examination of the judgment-debtor."
The situs of one of the assets of the judgment-debtors being outside the jurisdiction cannot stand in the way of this Court passing an order for filing of Affidavit of Assets. In any event, in view of the orders dated 8th August, 2023 and 17th July, 2023, whereby the judgment-debtor had sought for time to file their Affidavit of Assets, there is no reason as to why the judgment- debtors should not file their Affidavit of Assets. It is obvious that the judgment-debtors are simply procrastinating the execution proceeding.
In the above circumstances, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this execution application.
GA/3/2023 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. In view of the earlier orders of Court and the repeated disobedience of the judgment-debtors to file their Affidavit of Assets, the time to file the Affidavit of Assets is peremptorily extended till 31st August, 2023. 4
It is made clear that in default of filing of Affidavit of Assets, appropriate orders for warrants of arrest would be issued against the judgment-debtors.
Let this matter appear on 1st September, 2023.
(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.) S.Bag