//
you're reading...
legal issues

attachment of shares and sale of the same by directing the judgment debtor to produce shares certificates is not wrong=It is a matter of record that the shares held by the respondent in M/s.NFC were attached. The next step is to cause sale of shares. The garnishee i.e., company, in which the respondent had shares, expressed its inability to sell the shares, unless the share certificates are deposited. As a matter of fact, the executing Court ought to have taken those steps in E.A.No.1407 of 2007 itself. Atleast when the petitioner filed E.A.No.738 of 2008, it ought to have directed the respondent to produce the share certificates. The record discloses that on 08.06.2009, the executing Court allowed E.A.No.738 of 2008, but adjourned the matter to 29.06.2009 for production of shares. Instead of ensuring compliance, the executing Court had searched for a shortcut and on 16.06.2010, it has dismissed E.A. No.1407 of 2007; and on that basis, it dismissed E.A.No.738 of 2008. The approach of the executing Court is totally objectionable and this Court takes serious exception to the casual and callous manner, in which the matter was dealt with. It is on account of such attitude that the efficacy of the system is suffering a dent.

THE HON‘BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

the executing robbers

Image via Wikipedia

Civil Revision Petition No.5591 of 2011

29.11.2011

Veeragandam Venkateswarlu

Nerella Veeraswamy

Counsel for the petitioner:Sri M.Sudhir Kumar
Counsel for the respondent:Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar

ORDER:

It was not without reason that an adage got currency to the effect that
the troubles of a plaintiff in a suit start after the decree is passed in his
favour.

The petitioner filed O.S.No.397 of 1996 in the Court of I Additional
Junior Civil Judge, Ongole against the respondent for recovery of amount, on the
basis of a promissory note. The suit was decreed long back and after the decree
became final, the petitioner filed E.P.No.315 of 2003 for execution of the
decree, dated 17.01.1997. The respondent held shares in M/s.NFC. An order of
attachment was passed on 03.03.2006 and the attachment was made absolute on
26.02.2007. The petitioner filed E.A.No.1407 of 2007 with a prayer to send for
about 2000 shares of NFC for being sold for recovery of the suit amount. At one
stage, the trial Court passed an order directing the garnishee to sell the
shares.

On 07.02.2008, the garnishee addressed a letter stating that the share
certificates are with the respondent and unless they are deposited, the sale
cannot be effected. In view of this development, the petitioner filed
E.A.No.738 of 2008 with a prayer to direct the respondent to produce the
attached share certificates. The application was opposed by the respondent by
raising some technical grounds. The executing Court dismissed E.A.No.738 of
2008 as infructuous, in view of the orders passed in E.A.No.1407 of 2007. The
petitioner challenges the said order.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for
the respondent.

It is a matter of record that the shares held by the respondent in M/s.NFC
were attached. The next step is to cause sale of shares. The garnishee i.e.,
company, in which the respondent had shares, expressed its inability to sell the
shares, unless the share certificates are deposited. As a matter of fact, the
executing Court ought to have taken those steps in E.A.No.1407 of 2007 itself.
Atleast when the petitioner filed E.A.No.738 of 2008, it ought to have directed
the respondent to produce the share certificates.

The record discloses that on 08.06.2009, the executing Court allowed
E.A.No.738 of 2008, but adjourned the matter to 29.06.2009 for production of
shares. Instead of ensuring compliance, the executing Court had searched for a
shortcut and on 16.06.2010, it has dismissed E.A. No.1407 of 2007; and on that
basis, it dismissed E.A.No.738 of 2008. The approach of the executing Court is
totally objectionable and this Court takes serious exception to the casual and
callous manner, in which the matter was dealt with. It is on account of such
attitude that the efficacy of the system is suffering a dent.

Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under
revision is set aside. The executing Court is directed to ensure that the
respondent deposits the share certificates as directed by it on 08.06.2009,
without any further delay. Any complacency in this regard shall be treated as
an instance of incompetence on the part of the executing Court. There shall be
no order as to costs.
__________
29.11.2011
Note: L.R.Copy to be marked.
(B/o)
JSU

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,342 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: