LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
The Indian Constitution Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

upendra   20 January 2019

Objection application filled by jd under section 47 of cpc

defendant 1 is company and defendant 2 & 3 are director of the company. civil suit  was contested by defendant 1, 2 3 for 14 years. name of defendants 2 & 3 was mentioned in title clause and in plaint of civil suit as a director of defendant 1 company. The company is registered with ROC as private limited company but haven't  made compliences with ROC and tax authority . It is fake company.     Jendgement order passed against all three defendants by the court on 14/02/2017. Defendants resigned on 15/02/2017 from directorship of company. and new directors are added on 15/02/2019. Decree exicution suit filed by plaintiff (decree holder.) . The  court specificaly mentioned that amount is to be paid by defendant 1,2,3  to the plaintiff jointly and severaly. now the JD have filled application in decree exicuting cout u/s 47 of CPC objecting that they have no property (ACTUALY THEY HAVE) and their name shall be replaced by name of new directors in decree. Can anyone help me to get case laws in favour of plaintiff or decree holder.   



Learning

 7 Replies

upendra   20 January 2019

Originally posted by : upendra
defendant 1 is company and defendant 2 & 3 are director of the company. civil suit  was contested by defendant 1, 2 3 for 14 years. name of defendants 2 & 3 was mentioned in title clause and in plaint of civil suit as a director of defendant 1 company. The company is registered with ROC as private limited company but haven't  made compliences with ROC and tax authority . It is fake company.     Jendgement order passed against all three defendants by the court on 14/02/2017. Defendants resigned on 15/02/2017 from directorship of company. and new directors are added on 15/02/2017. Decree exicution suit filed by plaintiff (decree holder.) . The  court specificaly mentioned that amount is to be paid by defendant 1,2,3  to the plaintiff jointly and severaly. now the JD have filled application in decree exicuting cout u/s 47 of CPC objecting that they have no property (ACTUALY THEY HAVE) and their name shall be replaced by name of new directors in decree. Can anyone help me to get case laws in favour of plaintiff or decree holder.   

 

Dr J C Vashista (Advocate)     22 January 2019

Consult the lawyer engaged by you, who is well aware about the facts and circumstances of the case and an able, competent and intelligent enough to satisfy your quest. 

upendra   15 February 2019

Thanks you very much for your help

upendra   15 February 2019

Thank you sir, I am already in cunsultation with my lawyer. However ,I al looking for soem case law in support of my case status. 

Tushar Jha (Advisor)     16 February 2019

.........................

Tushar Jha (Advisor)     16 February 2019

File an Application under Order XXI Rule 41 of C.P.C. for examination of Judgment Debtors. In case of corporation or company, Order XXI Rule 50 of C.P.C. may be invoked.

Some case-law in favour of Decree-Holder (Plaintiff) under provisions of Order XXI Rule 41 of C.P.C.

1Bhandari Engineers & Builders ... Vs. M/S You One Maharia (JV) Delhi & Ors.  {Forum - Delhi HC}

2. Indusind Bank Ltd Vs. Chandra Bhusan Singh & Anr. {Forum - Calcutta HC}

3United Phosphorous Ltd.  Vs.  A.K. Kanoria {Forum - Bombay HC}
 

upendra   17 February 2019

Thanks for help . and valuable case lawas


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query