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>Decree-Holder's Suppression of Payment Revealed; Court Orders Costs for Abuse of Process in Money Decree Execution.</h1> <h3>Leo Ispat Limited Versus Radlay Metal Products Pvt. Ltd</h3> Leo Ispat Limited Versus Radlay Metal Products Pvt. Ltd - TMI Issues:1. Execution of a money decree by attachment of immovable and movable properties.2. Existence of judgment-debtor at different premises.3. Attachment of properties not belonging to the judgment debtor.4. Payment of decretal amount under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.5. Pending appeal against findings of Metropolitan Magistrate.6. Decision not to press appeal for refund of payment.7. Suppression of facts by the decree-holder in the execution petition.8. Disclosure of facts in the list of dates.9. Requirement of averments in pleadings, not in the list of dates.10. Abuse of the court process in the execution petition.11. Imposition of costs on the decree-holder for abuse of court process.12. Instructions for depositing costs with the Advocates Welfare Trust and counsel for judgment-debtor.13. Disposal of the execution petition as satisfied based on the statement of judgment-debtor's counsel.Analysis:1. The judgment deals with the execution of a money decree through the attachment of immovable and movable properties of the judgment-debtor at various locations in New Delhi. The decree-holder sought attachment at three premises, and issues arose regarding the existence of the judgment-debtor at these locations.2. The counsel for the decree-holder confirmed the existence of the judgment-debtor at two premises but clarified that the third property was the residence of the Director of the judgment debtor, not a party to the decree. Consequently, properties not belonging to the judgment debtor could not be attached.3. It was revealed that the decretal amount was paid under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and both parties had filed appeals against the findings of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The decree-holder acknowledged receiving the payment but failed to disclose this fact in the execution petition, leading to suppression of crucial information.4. The judgment highlighted the obligation of the decree-holder to disclose all relevant facts to the court. The failure to do so was deemed an abuse of the court process. The court imposed costs on the decree-holder for this suppression of facts and directed the deposit of specified amounts with the Advocates Welfare Trust and the counsel for the judgment-debtor within a specified timeframe.5. If the costs were not deposited as instructed, the court ordered the re-listing of the execution petition for appropriate action. However, if the costs were deposited within the stipulated time, the execution petition would be considered satisfied based on the statement of the judgment-debtor's counsel regarding the payment of the decretal amount.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
