Junjhari Investment Private Limited vs East India Securities Limited

The grievance of the petitioner, who is the judgment-debtor in a money decree, is that, by virtue of the first impugned order dated April 25, 2017 the executing court attached several Demat Accounts including Demat Account No. 10001259, which was a “Pool Account” for facilitating transactions relating to shares of third parties to the litigation.

By virtue of the second impugned order dated November 15, 2017, the petitioner’s application for modification of the first impugned order to the effect, that the aforementioned account may be released from attachment, was rejected. The petitioner contends that the petitioner is not the owner/beneficiary of the said “Pool Account” and as such, the said account could not have been attached in execution of a money award against the petitioner.

In controverting such arguments, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the petitioner’s client ID No.10001259, which is identical with the Demat Account Number in question, was the subject matter of the award itself. Moreover, the petitioner sat tight over the matter without taking any objection, although the award was passed in the year 2002. Thereafter the petitioner’s application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed for default in 2006 and, subsequently, an execution case was filed by the decree-holder/opposite party and ultimately the execution case was transferred to the City Civil Court at Calcutta, bearing Money Execution Case No. 54 of 2013.

Only on June 12, 2017 did the judgment-debtor/petitioner awoke from his hibernation and took out an application for modification of the order dated April 25, 2017 passed by the executing court, whereby the account-in-question, along with other accounts were attached. In fact, it is argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that the execution petition dated March 6, 2013 filed by the opposite party mentioned Demat Account No. 10001259 inter alia in the description of the property, in respect of which the award was sought to be executed.

Mr. Anirrudha Podder, learned advocate, seeks to intervene in the present matter at this juncture on behalf of the alleged third parties having interest in the Demat Account in question. Upon considering the submissions of both sides, as well as upon hearing the contention of Mr. Podder, advocate, it is evident that, despite having had several opportunities over a multiple number of years, the judgment-debtor did not care to mention before the executing court that Demat Account No. 10001259 was a “Pool Account” and that the judgment-debtor/petitioner had no interest in the said account either as beneficiary or owner.

As such, propriety demands that the judgment-debtor ought to be precluded from taking such factual objection to attachment at such a belated juncture, after the order of attachment was passed by the executing court. The factum of the judgment-debtor having waited for so long itself is indicative of the attempt on the part of the judgmentdebtor/petitioner to procrastinate the proceedings and cannot be given a premium by this Court.

Any grievance that any third party may have regarding the execution of the award could be taken care of not by way of the present revisional application, which is an offshoot of an interlocutory order between the parties to the present revisional application, but in an independent application, if any, preferred by such third parties before the executing court itself.

Accordingly, C. O. No. 4269 of 2017 is dismissed without interfering with the impugned order. However, it is made clear that this order or the orders impugned herein would not preclude any third party to approach the executing court agitating their independent rights vis-à-vis the Demat Account in question and if any such grievance is ventilated, the executing court will address and adjudicate their grievance strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made herein. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.