[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
204 views3 pages

Peddamma

Uploaded by

R T Chowdary Rimmalapudi

This order from the Principal District Judge in East Godavari, India regards an execution petition filed by Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. against respondents Vegi Aruna and Nagabathula Sundara Rao. The petition seeks attachment and sale of property relating to the 2nd respondent to satisfy an arbitration award of Rs. 3,73,079 plus 18% interest that the company was granted against the respondents. While the 2nd respondent disputed his liability and claimed the 1st respondent was responsible, the court found no documents were submitted to support this claim. As the enforceability of the award was not disputed and no other party has claimed ownership of the scheduled property, the court ruled that further execution proceedings against the

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf or txt

Peddamma

Uploaded by

R T Chowdary Rimmalapudi
204 views3 pages
This order from the Principal District Judge in East Godavari, India regards an execution petition filed by Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. against respondents Vegi Aruna and Nagabathula Sundara Rao. The petition seeks attachment and sale of property relating to the 2nd respondent to satisfy an arbitration award of Rs. 3,73,079 plus 18% interest that the company was granted against the respondents. While the 2nd respondent disputed his liability and claimed the 1st respondent was responsible, the court found no documents were submitted to support this claim. As the enforceability of the award was not disputed and no other party has claimed ownership of the scheduled property, the court ruled that further execution proceedings against the

Original Description:

Peddamma padyalu

Copyright

© © All Rights Reserved

Available Formats

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

This order from the Principal District Judge in East Godavari, India regards an execution petition filed by Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. against respondents Vegi Aruna and Nagabathula Sundara Rao. The petition seeks attachment and sale of property relating to the 2nd respondent to satisfy an arbitration award of Rs. 3,73,079 plus 18% interest that the company was granted against the respondents. While the 2nd respondent disputed his liability and claimed the 1st respondent was responsible, the court found no documents were submitted to support this claim. As the enforceability of the award was not disputed and no other party has claimed ownership of the scheduled property, the court ruled that further execution proceedings against the

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf or txt
204 views3 pages

Peddamma

Uploaded by

R T Chowdary Rimmalapudi
This order from the Principal District Judge in East Godavari, India regards an execution petition filed by Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. against respondents Vegi Aruna and Nagabathula Sundara Rao. The petition seeks attachment and sale of property relating to the 2nd respondent to satisfy an arbitration award of Rs. 3,73,079 plus 18% interest that the company was granted against the respondents. While the 2nd respondent disputed his liability and claimed the 1st respondent was responsible, the court found no documents were submitted to support this claim. As the enforceability of the award was not disputed and no other party has claimed ownership of the scheduled property, the court ruled that further execution proceedings against the

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1/ 3

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE:: EAST GODAVARI

AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT:-Sri N.Tukaramji
Principal District Judge

Wednesday, the 24th day of October, 2018

E.P.No.820/2016 in AC No.674/2013.

Between:

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Rajamahendravarm


Represented by its Senior Recovery Executive & GPA holder
I.Sai Subrahmanyam

.. Petitioner/DHR

A n d

1. Vegi Aruna
2. Nagabathula Sundara rao
.. Respondents/ JDRs
(E.P. against 2nd J.Dr. only)

This petition coming on 23-10-2018for final hearing in the


presence of Sri A.Srinivasarao, Advocate for D.Hr, and of Sri
M.Siva Subbaro, Advocate for JDRs, this day, this court made
the following:

O R D E R

1. This execution petition is for implementation of the

Award dated 31-07-2014 in AC No.674 of 2013 seeking attachment

and sale petition schedule property relating to 2nd J.Dr.

2. The petitioner submitted that Arbitration Award was

passed in its favour for Rs.3,73,079/- with subsequent

interest at 18% p.a. from the date of Award till the date of

realization. Even after the award and demands, as the

respondents/J.Drs did not choose to satisfy the award, this

execution petition is filed seeking attachment and sale of

E.P. schedule property of 2nd J.Dr. in terms of Order 21 Rule

54, 66, and 64 of Civil Procedure Code.

3. The 2nd respondent/2nd JDR filed counter disputing the

averments. Further pleaded that 1st J.Dr. is liable to pay the


2
EP .820 of 2016 , dt. 24-10-2018

amount and the D.Hr. has no right, title or interest to seek

for attachment of schedule property and he is not liable to

pay any amount to the decree holder. The D.Hr. has to proceed

against the 1st J.Dr. and her properties if any and she is

liable to pay the award amount and prayed for dismissal of the

petition.
4. Heard.

5. Now, the point arises for determination is,


Whether further proceedings in the execution petition can
be taken up?

POINT:

6. The J.Dr. are not disputing the enforceability of the

Award, but his ownership over the E.P. schedule property. As

per the record the schedule property was attached on 22-06-

2017 and during attachment or till this date, no one had

raised any claim regarding the property. Further the

respondents failed to file any document in support of the

pleadings. In the circumstances, as no tenable objection is

found, this court is of opinion that further execution

proceedings can be taken up.

7. In the result, the objections filed by the Judgment

debtors/2nd respondent are over-ruled and further proceedings

are taken up.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,


corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 24 th
day of October, 2018.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE


RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
3
EP .820 of 2016 , dt. 24-10-2018

You might also like