TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1650
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rties of the respondent No. 1. The suit has been filed in the Commercial Division of this Court. 2. It is the plaint case that from time to time, the respondent Nos. 1 obtained diverse loans and advances from the plaintiff petitioner. By issuing a confirmation of accounts dated April 1, 2018 for the period April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 the respondent No. 1 acknowledged that Rs. 14,86,00,000/- crores remained due and owing by her to the petitioner. In the petition the petitioner has disclosed a copy of the said confirmation of accounts dated April 1, 2018 issued by the respondent No. 1. From time to time, the respondent No. 1 and her husband, Shanti Kumar Surana had also obtained diverse loans and advances from the husband of the petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Middleton Hotels Private Limited at the face value of Rs. 10/- per share. Thus, the total debt owed by the respondent Nos. 1 and her said husband to the petitioner and her husband stood reduced by Rs. 1,20,08,060/-. 3. In spite of having executed the share transfer forms in respect of the said 12,00,806 equity shares of Middleton Hotels Private Limited by the respondent Nos. 1 and her said husband subsequently the said company refused to record the transfer of the said shares in the names of the petitioner and her husband. In view of certain further illegalities being committed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the said Middleton Hotels Private Limited, the petitioner and her husband have filed a proceeding before the Na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 11 of the application the petitioner has expressed an apprehension, which is claimed to be bona fide that unless restrained the respondent No. 1 will proceed to deal with and/or dispose of her other properties the flat Nos. 5A and 6A of 'Metro Plaza Apartment' at 1, Ho-Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata-700071 jointly owned by respondent Nos. 1 and her husband. On the basis of such apprehension the petitioner has prayed for attachment of all the said flat Nos. 8A and 9A at 6, Queens Park, Kolkata-700019 and the flat Nos. 5A and 6A of 'Metro Plaza Apartment' at 1, Ho-chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata-700071. 5. The petitioner submits that in the facts of the present case, in aid of the relief for attachment before judgment of this Court wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, within the period of limitation, under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 7. According to the respondents, the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code is applicable only when the plaintiff substantiates that after filing of the suit, the defendant is intending to transfer any immovable property, to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him. It is urged that in the present case, admittedly the respondent No. 1 transferred the flat Nos. 8A and 9A at 6, Queens Park, Kolkata in favour of the respondent No. 2 long before filing of the present suit in the month of August, 2019. Thus, on the basis of the said deed of gift dated August 6, 2018 executed by the respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owledge or information or belief, it must be stated as to which portion is true to knowledge, the source of information should be disclosed, and the grounds for belief should also be stated. It is pointed out that the said decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Premraj Mundra (supra) have been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raman Tech. & Process Engineering Co. & Anr. v. Solanki Traders reported in (2008) 2 SCC 302, as well as the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sunil Kakrania & Ors. v. M/s. Saltee Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 Cal 260. In support of their contention the respondents also rely on the said Supreme Court decision, as well as the Divisio....