TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the revision petition was barred because the objectors had an alternative remedy by suit under Order XXI, Rule 63 of the Civil Procedure Code; and (ii) whether objections to attachment of property in execution of a decree by a company in liquidation required leave under Section 171 of the Companies Act.
Issue (i): whether the revision petition was barred because the objectors had an alternative remedy by suit under Order XXI, Rule 63 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Analysis: The refusal under challenge was not an order passed on the merits of an objection under Order XXI, Rule 61, but a refusal to entertain the objection at all. The summary remedy provided by the Code could not be treated as extinguished merely because the executing court declined to hear the objection. In such circumstances, the availability of a suit did not exclude revision.
Conclusion: The preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision was rejected.
Issue (ii): whether objections to attachment of property in execution of a decree by a company in liquidation required leave under Section 171 of the Companies Act.
Analysis: The execution proceedings had been set in motion by the decree-holder company itself, and the objectors were seeking only to protect their property from attachment in those proceedings. The objection was treated as part of the defence available to persons affected by execution, and not as a separate proceeding requiring prior leave. The executing court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the objections under Order XXI, Rules 58 to 62.
Conclusion: Leave under Section 171 of the Companies Act was not required, and the executing court erred in refusing to hear the objections.
Final Conclusion: The order refusing to entertain the objections was set aside and the matter was sent back for hearing of the objections on merits in execution.
Ratio Decidendi: A refusal to entertain objections in execution, where the objector seeks to protect property from attachment, may be corrected in revision, and objections to execution proceedings initiated by a company in liquidation do not require leave merely because the decree-holder is in liquidation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
