https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293895 A non-debtor's property cannot remain under attachment in execution of a money decree merely because collusion with the judgment debtor is alleged; continuation of attachment requires a legal basis showing that the property is executable against the objector, and a bare allegation does not justify a trial under Order 21 Rules 58 and 59 CPC. The decree holder also could not rely on section 531 of the Companies Act, section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, or piercing the corporate veil, because those routes were either inapplicable or unsupported on the pleaded facts. The attachment was therefore vacated and the objections succeeded. en-us Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Mar 2021 11:47:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293895 A non-debtor's property cannot remain under attachment in execution of a money decree merely because collusion with the judgment debtor is alleged; continuation of attachment requires a legal basis showing that the property is executable against the objector, and a bare allegation does not justify a trial under Order 21 Rules 58 and 59 CPC. The decree holder also could not rely on section 531 of the Companies Act, section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, or piercing the corporate veil, because those routes were either inapplicable or unsupported on the pleaded facts. The attachment was therefore vacated and the objections succeeded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293895