New v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Rajwinder Kau Kaur & Others
Case Details
Page 1 of 6 6 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 124 CR-1064-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.03.2025 M/s Panesar Substation authorised Sig sar Agriculture Industries Bhatinn n (Power House) handayia, Dis d Signatory tinnda Road, Opposite 220 KV its District Barnala through New India Ass Assurance Company Vs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr.Gurbir Singh Sidhu, Adv for the petitioner. Advocate ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** CM-4448-CII- -2025 This is an application unde nder Section 151 CPC for placing on record zim zimni orders of Execution Applica plication i.e. EXE-143-2022 and Bank account unt on hold certificate dated 20.02.2 .02.2025 as Annexure P8 and P9. After going through the c e contents of the application, which is supp upported by affidavit, the same is e is allowed subject to all just exceptions and s and Annexure P8 and P9 are allowe llowed. MAIN CASE Present petition under Art of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed led by the petitioner/judgment de ing t debtor/owner of the offending vehicle, laying ying challenge to the order date 1) dated 04.01.2025 (Annexure P1) passed by lea learned District Judge, Barnala in ing in Execution Application bearing No.EXE-143-20 2022 vide which arrest warrant en rrant of the petitioner has been issued. SUNENA 2025.03.12 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 2. Learned counsel for the Page 2 of 6 6 (cid:1) in the petitioner submits that in passing the i he impugned order, the learned to ed District Judge has failed to appreciate tha that immovable property and ba er d bank account of the petitioner have been a n attached vide orders dated nd ed 04.03.2023, 01.04.2023 and 30.09.2023 (A 3 (Annexure P4). It is submitted tha he that the attached property of the petitioner has has not been put on auction till d of ill date; yet, warrants of arrest of the petitioner oner had been issued. It is conte ed ontended that the said attached property of t of the petitioner is sufficient to ed to satisfy 50% of the awarded amount as dir s directed by this Court vide order re rder dated 07.07.2022 (Annexure P7) passed in d inFAO-2950-2022 titled as “New Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajwinder Kau Kaur & Others”. It is submitted th be d that warrants of arrest can be issued only w ly when no alternative mode of is e of recovery is available. It is accordingly pr ly prayed that the impugned order b er be set aside. 3. 4. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned cou nd counsel for the petitioner and perused the ca e case file in great detail. 5. Brief facts of the case are ion are that the claimants’ petition filed under Se r Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles he icles Act, 1988 was allowed by the Motor Accide cident Claims Tribunal, Barnala v 22 la vide Award dated 01.04.2022 (Annexure P2 P2). The 3 claimants were as re awarded Rs.35,61,200/- as compensation tion along with interest @ 7% per rd per annum. Vide the said Award (Annexure P2) P2), the respondent/Insurance Com he Company was directed to pay the compensation tion amount to the claimants. Ho ere . However, recovery rights were SUNENA 2025.03.12 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) granted to the the Insurance Company against t Page 3 of 6 6 (cid:1) nd st the petitioner, as it was found that the petiti etitioner was not holding valid Regis ess Registration Certificate and Fitness Certificate for for the offending vehicle and was ply was not having valid permit to ply the offending g vehicle. Accordingly, on 27.9.20 ce .9.2022 the respondent/Insurance Company filed filed execution petition (Annexure for ure P-3) against the petitioner for recovery of Rs f Rs.39,81,452/- along with interest aid rest @ 9% per annum. In the said execution proc proceedings, the respondent-Insura nt surance Company moved present Application da n dated 28.11.2023 (Annexure P6) PC P6) under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC for issuance o ce of arrest warrants against the p as he petitioner/judgment debtor, as the petitioner oner had failed to make the paym nt payment of the decretal amount despite having ving the means to do so; and as th be as the petitioner was stated to be deliberately d ly delaying the execution proceedin er edings. Vide the impugned order dated 04.01.20 1.2025 (Annexure P1), the said app as application of the respondent has ed. been allowed. 6. I find no merit in the subm of ubmissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. ner. Record reveals that present ca in t case has a chequered history in as much as it s it appears that the petitioner is d he is deliberately trying to delay the proceedings. . The Award is dated 01.04.202 he .2022 (Annexure P2). Against the Award (Annex nnexure P2), the respondent/Insura - surance Company had filed FAO- 2950-2022 tit titled as “New India Assurance C & ce Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajwinder Kaur & Others”; in w in which vide order dated 07.07.2 of 07.2022 (Annexure P7) notice of motion was is as issued and recovery of 50% of the ed f the awarded amount was stayed subject to the the deposit of the entire awarded - rded amount by the respondent- SUNENA 2025.03.12 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Company with within one month which was to be Page 4 of 6 6 (cid:1) as o be released to the claimants as per the Award ard subject to their furnishing adeq adequate security. 7. Thereafter, the responde ion ondent filed present Execution Petition on 27 n 27.9.2022 (Annexure P-3), to reco m recover the decretal amount from the petitioner oner. Perusal of zimni orders (An on (Annexure P8) reveals that on 27.09.2022 no notice was issued in the said Execu nt xecution petition to the judgment debtor/petitio titioner for 02.11.2022. On 2.11.2 uly 11.2022, the petitioner was duly served yet he t he failed to put in appearance. Sa ext e. Same was the case on the next date of hearin aring i.e. 12.12.2022, As the petitio on etitioner failed to appear even on the next date o ate of hearing on 2.1.2023, he was as proceeded against ex parte. 8. List of property of the he the petitioner was filed by the respondent o t on 04.03.2023; whereafter, wa he , warrant of attachment of the property of t of the petitioner was issued for of for 01.04.2023. As warrant of attachment w was received back unexecuted on the same was issued again on 02.09.2023; and on 30.09.2023 warrant of a of of attachment of the property of the petitione ioner was finally received bac on back executed. Thereafter, on 20.10.2023, fo , following order was passed:- “An application was moved by HD its y HDFC Bank, Barnala through its Branch Manager, wherein it is sta ion is stated that in the said execution application the CC/limit account JD ount no. 04322320000298 of JD M/s Panesar Agriculture Industri per ustries has been attached as per orders of the court. That the abo it e above-said account is loan/limit account and not a deposit acco aid account of JD, as such the said account be released from the atta attachment. SUNENA 2025.03.12 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Ld. counsel for the DH has very Page 5 of 6 6 (cid:1) ot very fairly stated that he is not aware about the fact that the at it he attached property is loan/limit account and the same may be ord the e ordered to be released from the attachment. Accordingly, the application mov the moved herein is allowed and the CC/limit account no. 0432232000 be 20000298 of JD is ordered to be released from attachment. Ld. counsel for the DH has sought ate ught time to move an appropriate application with regard to the oth up e other property of JD. To come up on 03.11.2023.” As such, the attached bank as ank account of the petitioner was released as it a on it. s it already had a previous lien on it 9. It is
Legal Reasoning
in this background as und that the respondent was constrained t d to take resort to filing the ed the present application dated 28.11.2023 (A 3 (Annexure P6) under Order 21 R he 21 Rule 37 CPC, for sending the petitioner to to civil imprisonment; in which he hich notice was issued to the petitioner vid vide order dated 12.12.2023. Ord rds Order dated 20.12.2023 records that said noti notice was received back duly exe er. executed against the petitioner. Yet, the petitio etitioner failed to put in appearance of ance. Accordingly, upon deposit of subsistence a e allowance by learned counsel ee nsel for the respondent/decree holder on 21.1 21.12.2024, warrant of arrest of th he f the petitioner was issued on the next date of of hearing i.e. 04.01.2025 for 2 sh or 20.01.2025. Thereafter, fresh warrants of a of arrest have been issued against 25 inst the petitioner on 20.01.2025 2025. for 07.02.2025 SUNENA 2025.03.12 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 10. The provision of Order 2 Page 6 of 6 6 (cid:1) ear er 21 Rule 37 CPC is very clear inasmuch as as discretionary power is granted ivil nted to the Court to direct civil imprisonment ent of the errant judgment deb so ebtor, if the circumstances so warrant. From From the facts as narrated abov he bove, it would appear that the petitioner is e is evading the process of law, and lay and is deliberately trying to delay the execution tion proceedings. As such, I find to find no ground is made out to interfere in th n the impugned order. 11. 12. 06.03.2025 Sunena The present petition is acco accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s) if an
Decision
if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.03.12 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)