Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Griesheim Gmbh vs Goyal Mg Gases Pvt Ltd on 28 February, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ EX.P. 70/2006
M/S GRIESHEIM GMBH ..... Decree Holder
Through: Ms. Mohna M. Lal, Ms. Geetali
Talukdar and Mr. Joydeep Bordoloi,
Advocates.
versus
GOYAL MG GASES PVT LTD ..... Judgement Debtor
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Abhishek Puri, Mr. V.
Siddharth and Ms. Kaveri Rawal,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 28.02.2022
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
EX.APPL.(OS) 256/2022 (under Section 51(e), read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for urgent reliefs and directions)
1. Issue notice. Mr. Abhishek Puri, counsel for the Judgment Debtor, accepts notice. Reply to the application be filed within a period of two weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within a period of one week thereafter.
2. Ms. Mohna M. Lal, counsel for the Decree Holder, submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 28th January, 2022, restoring EFA (OS) 3/2014 to the file of the Division Bench of this Court, Court should proceed to execute the decree.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed EX.P. 70/2006 Page 1 of 3 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:03.03.2022 11:51:243. She submits that this is an old matter and the instant execution has been pending for almost sixteen years - owing to which the Decree Holder is unable to enjoy the fruits of the decree. She further submits that in EFA (OS) 3/2014, the order dated 29th November, 2013 has been impugned. She emphasises that there is no stay on the said Order, and yet, it has not been complied with. By referring to the said Order, she insists that the Judgment Debtor should be directed to deposit the original title deeds of the property at Sahibabad and also furnish a written undertaking - as directed in paragraph nos. 71 and 73 of the said Order. Additionally, she submits that the Judgment Debtor should be directed to satisfy the decree, by making payment of decretal amount, failing which steps be initiated in accordance with the law.
4. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Counsel for the Judgment Debtor, submits that the Decree Holder is adequately protected by way of a stay order passed in their favour, restraining the Judgement Debtor from alienating properties
- which are valued more than the decretal amount.
5. Additionally, he seeks time to place on record documents - which would indicate that a similar request as has been sought today from this Court, was pressed before the Supreme Court as well as before the Division Bench - but declined. Mr. Sethi submits that in any event, the Court should await the decision of Division Bench, now that the matter has been restored with a direction for a time-bound disposal.
6. Ms. Mohna M. Lal controverts the contentions of Mr. Sethi.
7. Having considered the submissions of the counsel for both sides, in the opinion of the Court, since there is no stay on the order passed by this Court, the decree has to be executed. Nonetheless, at the request of Mr. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed EX.P. 70/2006 Page 2 of 3 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:03.03.2022 11:51:24 Sethi, time is granted to file the documents. Further orders on this aspect, in absence of any stay from the Division Bench, would be considered on the next date of hearing.
8. Re-notify on 18th April, 2022.
9. The en bloc date fixed i.e. 12th April, 2022 stands cancelled.
SANJEEV NARULA, J FEBRUARY 28, 2022 nk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed EX.P. 70/2006 Page 3 of 3 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:03.03.2022 11:51:24