TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Maintains Property Restraint, Upholds Petitioners' Interests in Execution Dispute</h1> <h3>Devinder Singh and Ors. Versus Goldstar Enclave Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.</h3> Devinder Singh and Ors. Versus Goldstar Enclave Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. - TMI Issues:- Late filing of reply affidavit by R-1- Prayer for restraining R-1 from parting with property- Challenge to maintainability of execution application by R-1- Direction for return of cheques by R-1- Time sought by R-2 to file reply affidavitLate Filing of Reply Affidavit by R-1:The Counsel for R-1 sought leave for late filing of the reply affidavit, which was granted by the Tribunal. The reply affidavit was filed and a copy was provided to the other party. The petitioners were directed to file a rejoinder within three weeks by serving a copy to R-1 Company. The hearing was adjourned at the request of the Counsel for R-1 to allow for a detailed hearing.Prayer for Restraining R-1 from Parting with Property:The Senior Counsel for the petitioners requested an order to prevent R-1 Company from disposing of the property until the hearing of the application. The Counsel for R-1 objected to this prayer, stating that the application under consideration was an execution application and challenging its maintainability. Despite hearing arguments, the Tribunal decided to maintain the status quo of the assets by restraining R-1 from creating third-party interests in its assets until the application's disposal. This decision aimed to prevent the risk of the petitioners losing the amount agreed upon in the consent decree.Challenge to Maintainability of Execution Application by R-1:R-1 Company raised concerns about the maintainability of the execution application. The Tribunal considered this challenge but decided to restrain R-1 from alienating its property to safeguard the interests of the petitioners. The decision was made to ensure that the petitioners could realize the agreed-upon amount from R-1 as per the consent decree.Direction for Return of Cheques by R-1:The Counsel for R-1 requested directions for the return of cheques tendered to the Special Officer as part of a settlement. The Tribunal decided that the cheques would be kept with the Special Officer temporarily, subject to the decision on maintainability. Additionally, R-1 was directed to pay the fee due to the Special Officer within two weeks via a demand draft.Time Sought by R-2 to File Reply Affidavit:R-2 requested an extension of two weeks to file a reply affidavit, which was granted by the Tribunal. The reply affidavit was to be served to the other party, and a rejoinder could be filed within two weeks of receiving the reply affidavit by serving a copy to R-2.The matter was adjourned to a later date for a hearing on the maintainability of the application, allowing all parties sufficient time to comply with the directions and deadlines set by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
