Supreme Court of India
CENTRAL BANK OF !NOIA versus M/S. MADAN LAL AND BROTHERS AND ORS. on 1 November 1995
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
-
A
CENTRAL BANK OF !NOIA v.
M/S. MADAN LAL AND BROTHERS AND ORS.
NOVEMBER J, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND KJRPAL, JJ.J
Civil Pmcedure Code, 1908:
Section SI-Decree in execution-Satisfaction of-Sale of hypothecated pmpe1ty to realise decretal debt-In case of shortfall to proceed against any C other asset or pe1:\·onally against any other defendant-Directions issued.
In this appeal by the appellant-Bank against the High Court's judg-ment, the respondents contended that the hypothecated property may be assessed at its market value as on date and may be put to execution; and that in case the property was not sufficient, proceedings may be taken for D recovery of the bala~ce dues in accordance \vith law.
Disposing of the appeal, this Court
HELD : The appellant is at liberty, in the first instance, to proceed with the sale of the aforesaid property and realise the decretal debt from E the sale proceeds and to have the same satisfied with the decree in execution. In case there is any shortfall, it would be open to the appellants to proceed against any other assets or personally against any other defen-dants in accordance with law. If sale proceeds are in excess, it is needless to n1ention that the amount in excess of the decretal an1ount would be paid F over to the respondents. [700-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10022 of 1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.7.90 of the Punjab & G
Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 185 of 1990.
Rishi Kcsh, for the Appellant.
Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj and Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj for the Respon<lent~. 699
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
It is stated that respondents 5-7 are the legal representatives of respondent No. 4. Therefore, the need to substitute them is obviated. They would represent the estate of the deceased-4th respondent.
B
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel on both sides. In all fairness, the counsel for the respondents had slated that hypotheca, namely, the factory premises situated at G.T. Road, Pha1,>Wara, ground floor marked as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I together with all structure existing thereon, with C all the shade, Kothas, boundary walls etc. etc. as men(ioned in the Schedule to the plaint be assessed at its market value as on date and may be put to execution. The amount realised out of sale thereof would be credited to the account of decree in question. In case the property is not sufficient, then it would be open to the respondents to proceed for the recovery of D the dues by proceeding against other orders or proceedings accordance with law. We appreciate the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, the appellant is at liberty, in the first instance, to proceed with the sale of the aforesaid property and realise the decretal debt from the sale proceeds and to have the same satisfied with the decree in execution. In case there is any shortfall, it would be open to the E appellants to proceed against any other assets or personally against any other defendants in accordance with law. If sale proceeds are in excess, it is needless to mention that the amount in excess of the decretal amount would be paid over to the respondents .
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
F
Appeal disposed of.
G.N.