https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312700 The Bombay HC dismissed an appeal concerning property attachment where monies were fraudulently transferred and documents prepared. The court held that third parties claiming ownership of attached property can file objections under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC instead of separate suits. The executing court has sufficient power to decide such applications, though claims cannot be entertained if property is already sold or if designedly delayed. The court clarified that precept under section 46 applies when property is outside jurisdiction or involves movable assets. The single judge correctly followed CPC procedure, and the appellant was directed to exhaust available remedies under Order 21 Rule 58. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Mar 2024 20:27:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312700 The Bombay HC dismissed an appeal concerning property attachment where monies were fraudulently transferred and documents prepared. The court held that third parties claiming ownership of attached property can file objections under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC instead of separate suits. The executing court has sufficient power to decide such applications, though claims cannot be entertained if property is already sold or if designedly delayed. The court clarified that precept under section 46 applies when property is outside jurisdiction or involves movable assets. The single judge correctly followed CPC procedure, and the appellant was directed to exhaust available remedies under Order 21 Rule 58. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312700