# Dhanush Vir Singh Revisionist v. Dr. Ila Sharma & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 910
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-18
- **Case number:** S.C.C. Revision No. 19 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dhanush-vir-singh-revisionist-v-dr-ila-sharma-ors-opp-parties-52340
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 51:
Powers of Court to enforce execution -
Section
55:
Arrest
and
detention
-
Execution Proceeding - Warrant of Arrest
against the Branch Manager/General Manager of
the Company who had signed the Tenancy
Agreement - Provincial Small Causes Courts
Act, 1887, Section 25 - Issue: Whether the
Directors/Authorized
Representatives
of
a
Limited Company can be arrested and detained
in Civil Prison for execution of a Money Decree
against the Company, or so to say, whether the
Directors/Authorized Representatives of the
Company are bound in a representative capacity
for the Judgment Debtor Company for the
execution of the said Decree - Held: A Money
Decree cannot be executed by arresting and
detaining in Civil Prison the Directors/Authorized
Representatives
of
the
Judgment
Debtor
Company, responsible for the conduct of the
business of the Company. There is no provision
in the CPC that allows execution of a Money
Decree against the Judgment Debtor Company
by arresting and detaining its Employee,
Director, or General Manager. The Executing
Court cannot go behind the decree. The
Executing Court cannot execute the decree
against anyone, other than the Judgment
Debtor or from the assets/properties of
anyone other than the Judgment Debtor. It
was for the Decree Holder to point out the
assets of the Judgment Debtor Company
against which the Decree can be executed.
Such details can be obtained from the
Registrar of Companies. Without undertaking
any such exercise, the Decree Holder cannot
execute the Decree against an individual by
seeking his arrest and detention in civil
prison. In the case at hand, the Revisionist is
not the Judgment Debtor; rather, M/s Bennett
Coleman & Co. Ltd. is the Judgment Debtor.
(Para 19, 28)

Revision allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,125 of 54,178. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39125 for what follows._

910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
terms of the ordainment of Rule 102 of
Order XXI, Rules 98 and 100 thereof
would not apply to resistance or obstruction
in execution of a decree for the possession
of immovable property by a person to
whom the judgment-debtor has transferred
the property after the institution of the suit
in which the decree was passed."

24. The 1st question which arises
for determination is with regard to the
validity of the order dated 30/04/2015 and
29/05/2015 whereby the application filed
by the petitioner was dismissed and further
the recall application was also rejected. The
petitioner stated that on 30/04/2015 he had
met with an accident and consequently
could not reach the Court nor inform his
counsel and consequently his application
under Order 21 Rule 97 was rejected. The
trial Court was of the view that the
proceedings have been pending for 35
years, and also that he had perused the
record where on merits no case for
interference was made out and accordingly
rejected the application. From perusal of the
above order it is clear that the application for
recall was rejected without considering the
grounds on which it was filed. This court
treats the said rejection to be merely on
account of want of prosecution as no reasons
have been either considered or stated for
rejecting the said application on merits. The
recall application was filed soon thereafter,
which also was rejected affirming the order
dated 30/04/2015. Considering the reasons
given by the petitioner for his nonappearance
on
30/04/2015,
and
recall
application moved immediately thereafter
clearly indicates that the non-appearance was
not intentional. The Court is satisfied that
reasons for non appearance were adequately
explained by the petitioner and hence the exparte order ought to have been recalled.
Though the contesting respondent had
opposed the said application as being false
and misconceived, but no document or
evidence was filed to controvert the facts
stated in the application preferred by the
petitioner, and accordingly both the orders
are therefore, arbitrary and accordingly set
aside and the application for recall is allowed.

25. This Court after perusal of the
facts of the case concludes that the petitioner
being an interested party in the suit being in
possession of the decreed property, has right
to raise his objections under Order 21 Rule
97 CPC before the execution of the decree,
which ought to have been duly considered by
the trial Court.

26. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed and the matter is remitted to the trial
Court to pass fresh orders on the application
under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC preferred by the
petitioner. Considering the fact that much
time has lapsed due to pendency of the
proceedings, the trial Court is directed to
consider
and
decide
the
application
expeditiously, say within maximum period of
six weeks from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.

27. The parties before this Court
undertake to cooperate the proceedings
before the trial Court.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 910
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

S.C.C. Revision No. 19 of 2024

Dhanush Vir Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
Dr. Ila Sharma & Ors. ...Opp. Parties
7 All. Dhanush Vir Singh Vs. Dr. Ila Sharma & Ors.
911
Counsel for the Revisionist:
Pankaj Saksena

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Rama Goel Bansal, Shalini Goel

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 51:
Powers of Court to enforce execution -
Section
55:
Arrest
and
detention
-
Execution Proceeding - Warrant of Arrest
against the Branch Manager/General Manager of
the Company who had signed the Tenancy
Agreement - Provincial Small Causes Courts
Act, 1887, Section 25 - Issue: Whether the
Directors/Authorized
Representatives
of
a
Limited Company can be arrested and detained
in Civil Prison for execution of a Money Decree
against the Company, or so to say, whether the
Directors/Authorized Representatives of the
Company are bound in a representative capacity
for the Judgment Debtor Company for the
execution of the said Decree - Held: A Money
Decree cannot be executed by arresting and
detaining in Civil Prison the Directors/Authorized
Representatives
of
the
Judgment
Debtor
Company, responsible for the conduct of the
business of the Company. There is no provision
in the CPC that allows execution of a Money
Decree against the Judgment Debtor Company
by arresting and detaining its Employee,
Director, or General Manager. The Executing
Court cannot go behind the decree. The
Executing Court cannot execute the decree
against anyone, other than the Judgment
Debtor or from the assets/properties of
anyone other than the Judgment Debtor. It
was for the Decree Holder to point out the
assets of the Judgment Debtor Company
against which the Decree can be executed.
Such details can be obtained from the
Registrar of Companies. Without undertaking
any such exercise, the Decree Holder cannot
execute the Decree against an individual by
seeking his arrest and detention in civil
prison. In the case at hand, the Revisionist is
not the Judgment Debtor; rather, M/s Bennett
Coleman & Co. Ltd. is the Judgment Debtor.
(Para 19, 28)

Revision allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :-
1. Case No. C.R.P. No. 5832 of 2006 (V.
Dharmavenamma
Vs
C.
Subrahmanyam
Mandadi) reported in (2009) 06 AP CK 0018

2. Shyam Singh Vs Collector, District Hamirpur
U.P. & ors., reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 693

3. M/s G-Tech Stone Ltd. Vs Bfil Finance Ltd.
O.S.A. No. 287 of 2019 and C.M.P. Nos. 22998
and 24061 of 2019 Madras High Court

4. V. K. Uppal Vs Akshay International Pvt. Ltd.
Manu/DE/0320/2010

5. Anirban Roy & ors. Vs Ram Kishan Gupta &
ors. Manu/DE/ 3524/ 2017

6.
Liugong
India
Pvt.
Ltd.
Vs
Yograj
Infrastructure Ltd. & ors. Manu/DE/ 1909/2018

7. H.S. Sidona Vs Rajesh Enterprises 1993 (77)
P&H 251

8. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs
St. of Bih. AIR 1965 SC 40

9. Delhi Development Authority Vs Skipper
Construction Company (P) Ltd. 1996(4) SCC 622

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Saksena, learned
counsel for the Revisionist and Smt. Rama
Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the
Plaintiff/Decree Holder/ Opposite Party
No.1. The Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 have
been
arrayed
as
Judgment
Debtors/Defendants/Proforma
Opposite
Parties. No one has put in appearance on
their behalf.

2. With the consent of the parties the
instant SCC Revision is being decided
finally.

3. The instant SCC Revision under
Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes
Courts Act, 1887 at the instance of the
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Defendant/Judgment Debtor has been filed
questioning the judgment and order dated
16.01.2024 passed by the Additional
District Judge, Court No. 6, Bareilly ,
whereby and whereunder allowing the
application 57-Kha of the Plaintiff/Decree
Holder/Opposite Party No. 1 in Execution
Case No. 02 of 2021 arising out of SCC
Suit No. 18 of 2016 and issuing the
Warrant of Arrest against the Revisionist.

4. The relief claimed by way of the
instant SCC Revision is that the Revision
be allowed the judgment and order dated
16.01.2024 in Execution Case No. 2 of
2021 (Dr. Ila Sharma Vs. M/s Benett
Coleman & Co. Ltd. and others) be set
aside with costs.

5. The facts giving rise to the
controversy involved between the parties
shorn of unnecessary details are that the
Revisionist presently working as Vice
President of M/s Benett Coleman & Co.
Ltd. while working as General Manager
and Branch Head was duly authorized to
enter into lease agreement with one Ram
Dev Bhaguna for the purposes of rent for
the period of 9 years w.e.f. 01.06.2013 to
31.05.2022 @ Rs.15,000/- to be enhanced
by 15% after 3 years regarding office
space at 129, Civil Lines, Balwant Singh
Road, Bareilly, having total area 2000 sq.
ft. Though the tenancy was for a fixed
period of 9 years but the lessee was
entitled to terminate the lease by giving 3
months notice during the tenure of the
lease. The tenancy was terminated by the
Landlord/Lessor
vide
Notice
dated
22.04.2016 and a request was made to the
Company to vacate the premises and
handover the vacant possession on expiry
of 30 days from the service of notice and
claimed mesne profits @ Rs.2500/- per
day till delivery of actual physical
possession. The Company did not vacate
the
tenanted
premises
and
the
Lessor/Landlord instituted a SCC Suit
being SCC Suit No. 18 of 2016 (Dr. Illa
Sharma and others Vs. M/s Benett
Coleman & Co. Ltd. and others) for
ejectment and recovery of mesne profits
@ Rs.2500/- per day from the date of
filing of the Suit till the date of actual
possession.

6. The Company is stated to have
filed an Application dated 10.09.2018
(Paper No. 37-C) before the Court stating
that it is willing to handover the vacant
possession of the premises to the
Landlord but the Landlord is not coming
forward
to
accept
the
same
and,
accordingly, a request was made that the
keys of the premises be accepted by the
Court and an Amin Commissioner be
appointed to ascertain the vacancy and
take custody and hand over possession to
the Landlord. It is admitted position that
vacant
possession
of
the
tenanted
premises
was
handed
over
to
the
Opposite Party No.1, Dr. Illa Sharma on
01.10.2019, who issued a Letter of
Possession on 01.10.2019.

7. The SCC Suit, thereafter proceeded
ex-parte and was decreed vide judgment
and decree dated 05.08.2021 under which
the Company M/s Benett Coleman & Co.
Ltd. was directed to pay the mesne profit @
Rs.2500/- per day from the date of filing of
the Suit till the date of delivery of
possession i.e. 01.10.2019 totaling to a sum
of Rs.30,57,500/- to the Plaintiff/Opposite
Party No.1 within one month. The
judgment and decree dated 05.08.2021 has
been assailed by the Company M/s Benett
Coleman & Co. Ltd. in SCC Revision
(Defective) No. 36 of 2023, in which this
Court has issued notice on the Delay
7 All. Dhanush Vir Singh Vs. Dr. Ila Sharma & Ors.
913
Condonation Application and the Revision
is pending consideration. The effect and
operation of the judgment and decree dated
05.08.2021 has not been stayed.

8.

The
Plaintiff/Decree
Holder/Opposite Party No.1 filed an
execution case registered as Execution
Case No. 2 of 2021. The Execution Case
was filed against one Sri Vijay Sahi, the
then General manager M/s Benett Coleman
& Co. Ltd., as Opposite Party No. 3.
Subsequently, the Decree Holder/ Opposite
Party No.1 impleaded one Sri Vineet
Kumar Jain, Managing Director of the
Company, as party to the Execution Case,
who filed his objections. The Executing
Court vide its order dated 23.05.2023
partially allowed the objections holding
that the Execution Case cannot proceed
against the Managing Director of the
Company as he was neither party to the
proceedings
nor
party
to
the
lease
agreement signed between the parties. The
Executing Court, however, observed that
the execution is maintainable against the
Branch Manager/General Manager of the
Company who had signed the agreement.
Accordingly, the Revisionist and the
proforma
Respondent
No.
4
were
impleaded in the execution proceedings.

9.

The
Plaintiff/Decree
Holder/Opposite Party No.1 filed an
Application
(Paper
No.
57-Kha)
on
04.11.2023 praying for the arrest and
detention of the Revisionist as required
under Section 55 of the C.P.C. The said
Application (Paper No. 57-Kha) was
objected to by the Revisionist by stating
that the Application is misconceived, as no
grounds on which arrest of the Revisionist
has been sought, has been disclosed, there
is neither any allegation against the
Revisionist nor any avernment that he is
absconding the decree has not been passed
against him in his individual capacity, the
compliance of order 21 Rule 41 CPC has
not been made and no notice has been
issued under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC.

10. The Additional District Judge,
Court No. 6, Bareilly, vide the impugned
judgment and order dated 16.01.2024 has
proceeded to allow the Application (Paper
No. 57 Kha) of the Plaintiff/Decree Holder
and
rejected
the
objections
of
the
Revisionist and issued the Warrant of
Arrest against the Revisionist.

11. Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned
counsel for the Revisionist vehemently
submits
that
the
instant
execution
proceedings against the Revisionist is an
abuse of the process of law inasmuch as the
Revisionist is merely the employee of the
Judgment Debtor Company M/s Benett
Coleman & Co. Ltd., and no decree has
been passed against him personally but has
been passed against the Company. The
Revisionist has been impleaded in the
proceedings in an official capacity and not
in his personal capacity and as such, the
decree cannot be executed against him by
seeking his arrest and detention in civil
prison. It is also argued that the Application
(Paper
No.
57-Kha)
was
totally
misconceived, not maintainable inasmuch
as it violated the provisions of Order 21
Rule 11-A, Order 21 Rule 37 and Order 21
Rule 41 CPC. It is, accordingly, prayed that
the Application be set aside and the
Revision be allowed.

12. Per contra, Smt. Rama Goel
Bansal, learned counsel for the Landlord/
Plaintiff/Decree Holder/Opposite Party has
filed
supplementary
counter
affidavit
stating that the Judgment Debtor Company
is avoiding the decree by adopting the
914 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
delaying tactics and is harassing the decree
holder who is an old lady of 80 years
residing in Delhi. Almost 3 years have
passed by and the decree dated 05.08.2021
has
not
been
executed.
Earlier,
an
Application on behalf of the judgment
debtor was filed to recall the ex-parte
decree
without
complying
with
the
provisions of Section 17 of the Provincial
Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. Later on,
the said proceedings were withdrawn. The
Revisionist has been impleaded under order
of the Executing Court dated 23.05.2023,
which order has not been put to challenge.
The case was also placed before the Lok
Adalat at the request of the judgment
debtor, however, the judgment debtor did
not appear on the date fixed due to non
arrangement of the liability to satisfy the
decree. It is also averred that as per the
knowledge of the decree holder, no
property is owned by the judgment debtor
in the District Bareilly and in such
circumstances, the decree holder has been
compelled to execute the decree in mode
provided by Section 51 CPC and cannot be
compelled to adopt any other mode. It is
also
vehemently
contended
that
the
Revisionist is an authorized representative
of the judgment debtor and he cannot avoid
his liability to comply with the money
decree. It is, accordingly, prayed that the
Revision be dismissed at the threshold.

13. Reliance is placed upon the
decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
in Case No. C.R.P. No. 5832 of 2006 (V.
Dharmavenamma Vs C. Subrahmanyam
Mandadi) reported in (2009) 06 AP CK
0018 and a decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Shyam Singh versus Collector,
District
Hamirpur
U.P. and others,
reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 693 to
buttress the point that a decree holder
cannot be compelled to adopt a particular
mode for executing the decree. Reliance is
also placed upon a decision of Madras High
Court in the case O.S.A. No. 287 of 2019
and C.M.P. Nos. 22998 and 24061 of 2019
(M/s G-Tech Stone Ltd. versus Bfil
Finance Ltd.) to submit that the corporate
veil can be lifted where the Court from the
material on record comes to the conclusion
that the judgment debtor is trying to defeat
the execution of the decree.

14. In the above backdrop this Court
has been called upon to rule on the legality,
propriety and correctness of the order dated
16.01.2024
passed
by
the
learned
Additional District Judge, Court No. 6,
Bareilly in Execution Case No. 2 of 2021
whereby the Application (Paper No. 57Kha) of the decree holder has been allowed
and Warrant of Arrest under Order 21 Rule
38 CPC has been issued against the
Revisionist who has been impleaded as
Opposite Party No. 3 in the execution case.

15. I have heard the learned counsels
for the parties at length and have perused
the record as also the case laws cited at the
bar.

16.

The
moot
question
for
consideration in this Revision is whether
the Directors/Authorized Representatives
of a Limited Company be arrested and
detained in Civil Prison for execution of a
Money Decree against the Company or so
to say whether the Directors/Authorized
Representatives of the Company are bound
in a representative capacity for the
Judgment
Debtor
Company
for
the
execution of the said Decree.

17.

Admittedly,
the
Tenancy
Agreement dated 12.06.2013 was executed
with M/s Benett Coleman & Co. Ltd., an
existing Company within the meaning of
7 All. Dhanush Vir Singh Vs. Dr. Ila Sharma & Ors.
915
Companies Act, 1956 acting through the
Revisionist, who was then working in the
capacity of General Manager. In the SCC
Suit filed, the Company M/s Benett
Coleman & Co. Ltd. was impleaded
through its General Manager at Lucknow
and Branch Manager at Bareilly. The exparte decree dated 05.08.2021 in the SCC
Suit No. 18 of 2016 has been passed
against M/s Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.
and as such, the Company is the judgment
debtor. The execution of the ex-parte
decree is sought to be executed against the
Judgment Debtor Company through the
Revisionist by filing an Execution Case
registered as Execution Case No. 2 of 2021,
under Section 51 read with Order 21 Rule
37 CPC for arrest and detention of the
Revisionist in civil prison according to law
for non payment of the amount of Rs.
30,57,500/- along with 18% interest and
execute the decree for recovery of the
amount. The Decree Holder/ Opposite
Party reserves her right to opt to the mode
for execution of the decree through
attachment and sale or by sale without
attachment of the property of the judgment
debtor as also under Section 51 (b) CPC.

18. The Code of Civil Procedures,
1908 is a self contained Code which
provides for the elaborate procedure for
executing a decree. It would be apposite to
refer to some of the provisions of the CPC
which deal with execution of a decree and
have been relied upon particularly by the
learned
counsel
for
the
Decree
Holder/Respondent.

Section 51: Powers of Court to
enforce execution:-

51. Subject to such conditions
and limitations as may be prescribed, the
Court may, on the application of the
decree-holder, order execution of the
decree-

(a) by delivery of any property
specifically decreed;

(b) by attachment and sale or by
sale without attachment of any property;

(c) by arrest and detention in
prison;

(d) by appointing a receiver; or

(e) in such other manner as the
nature of the relief granted may require.

Provided that, where the decree is
for the payment of money, execution by
detention in prison shall not be ordered
unless, after giving the judgment-debtor an
opportunity of showing cause why he
should not be committed to prison, the
Court, for reasons recorded in writing, is
satisfied-

(a) that the judgment-debtor, with
the object or effect of obstructing or
delaying the execution of the decree-

(i) is likely to abscond or leave
the local limits of the jurisdiction of the
Court, or

(ii) has, after the institution of the
suit in which the decree was passed,
dishonestly
transferred,
concealed,
or
removed any part of his property, or
committed any other act of bad faith in
relation to his property, or

(b) that the judgment-debtor has,
or has had sine the date of the decree, the
means to pay the amount of the decree or
some substantial part thereof and refuses or
neglects or has refused or neglected to pay
the same, or

(c) that the decree is for a sum for
which the judgment-debtor was bound in a
fiduciary capacity to account.

Explanation.-In the calculation
of the means of the judgment-debtor for the
purposes of clause (b), there shall be left
out of account any property which, by or
under any law or custom having the force
916 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of law for the time being in force, is
exempt from attachment in execution of the
decree.
State Amendment:-

Uttar Pradesh- In section 51,
after clause (b), insert the following clause,
namely:- "(bb) by transfer other than sale,
by attachment or without attachment of any
property"

Section
55
Arrest
and
detention: (1) A judgment-debtor may be
arrested in execution of a decree at any
hour and on any day, and shall, as soon as
practicable, be brought before the Court,
and his detention may be in the civil prison
of the district in which the Court ordering
the detention is situate, or, where such civil
prison
does
not
afford
suitable
accommodation, in any other place which
the State Government may appoint for the
detention of persons ordered by the Courts
of such district to be detained;

Provided, firstly, that, for the
purpose of making an arrest under this
section, no dwelling-house shall be entered
after sunset and before sunrise;

Provided, secondly, that no outer
door of a dwelling-house shall be broken
open unless such dwelling-house is in the
occupancy of the judgment-debtor and he
refuses or in any way prevents access
thereto, but when the officer authorised to
make the arrest has duly gained access to
any dwelling-house, he may break open the
door of any room in which he has reason to
believe the judgment-debtor is to be found;

Provided, thirdly, that, if the
room is in the actual occupancy of a
woman who is not the judgment-debtor and
who according to the customs of the
country does not appear in public, the
officer authorised to make the arrest shall
give notice to her that she is at liberty to
withdraw, and, after allowing a reasonable
time for her to withdraw and giving her
reasonable facility for withdrawing, may
enter the room for the purpose of making
the arrest;

Provided, fourthly, that, where
the decree in execution of which a
judgment-debtor is arrested, is a decree for
the payment of money and the judgmentdebtor pays the amount of the decree and
the costs of the arrest to the officer
arresting him, such officer shall at once
release him.

(2) The State Government may,
by notification in the Official Gazette,
declare that any person or class of persons
whose arrest might be attended with danger
or inconvenience to the public shall not be
liable to arrest in execution of a decree
otherwise than in accordance with such
procedure as may be prescribed by the
State Government in this behalf.

(3) Where a judgment-debtor is
arrested in execution of a decree for the
payment of money and brought before the
Court, the Court shall inform him that he
may apply to be declared an insolvent, and
that he may be discharged, if he has not
committed any act of bad faith regarding
the subject of the application and if he
complies with provisions of the law of
insolvency for the time being in force.

(4) Where a judgment-debtor
express his intention to apply to be declared
an insolvent and furnishes security, to the
satisfaction of the Court, that he will within
one month so apply, and that he will
appear,
when
called
upon,
in
any
proceeding upon the application or upon
the decree in execution of which he was
arrested, the Court may release him from
arrest, and, if he fails so to apply and to
appear, the Court may either direct the
security to be realised or commit him to the
civil prison in execution of the decree.
 Order 21 Rule 10. Application
for execution.
7 All. Dhanush Vir Singh Vs. Dr. Ila Sharma & Ors.
917
 Where the holder of a decree
desires to execute it, he shall apply to the
Court which passed the decree or to the
officer (if any) appointed in this behalf, or
if the decree has been sent under the
provisions
hereinbefore
contained
to
another Court then to such Court or to the
proper officer thereof.

Order
21
Rule
11.
Oral
application.

(1) Where a decree is for the
payment of money the Court may, on the
oral application of the decree-holder at the
time of passing of the decree, order
immediate execution thereof by the arrest
of the judgment-debtor, prior to the
preparation of a warrant if he is within the
precincts of the Court.

(2) Written application- Save as
otherwise provided by sub-rule(1), every
application for the execution of a decree
shall be in writing, signed and verified by
the applicant or by some other person
proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be
acquainted with the facts of the case, and
shall contain in a tabular form the
following particulars, namely-
 (a) the number of the suit;
 (b) the names of the parties;

(c) the date of the decree;

(d) whether any appeal has been
preferred from the decree;
 (e) whether any, and (if any)
what, payment or other adjustment of the
matter in controversy has been made
between the parties subsequently to the
decree;
 (f) whether any, and (if any)
what, previous applications have been
made for the execution of the decree, the
dates of such applications and their results;

(g) the amount with interest (if
any) due upon the decree, or other relief
granted thereby, together with particulars
of any cross-decree, whether passed before
or after the date of the decree sought to be
executed;

(h) the amount of the costs (if
any) awarded;

(I) the name of the person against
whom execution of the decree is sought;
and

(j) the mode in which the
assistance of the Court is required whether-

(i) by the delivery of any property
specifically decreed;

(ii) by the attachment, or by the
attachment and sale, or by the sale without
attachment, of any property;

(iii) by the arrest and detention in
prison of any person;

(iv) by the appointment of a
receiver;

(v) otherwise, as the nature of the
relief granted may require.

(3) The Court to which an
application is made under sub-rule (2) may
require the applicant to produce a certified
copy of the decree.
 Order 21 Rule 11A. Application
for arrest to state grounds.

Where an application is made for
the arrest and detention in prison of the
judgment-debtor, it shall state, or be
accompanied by an affidavit stating, the
grounds on which arrest is applied for.

Order 21 Rule 30. Decree for
payment of money.

Every decree for the payment of
money, including a decree for the payment
of money as the alternative to some other
relief, may be executed by the detention in
the civil prison of the judgment-debtor, or
by the attachment and sale of his property,
or by both.

Order
21
Rule
37.
Discretionary
power
to
permit
judgment-debtor to show cause against
detention in prison.-
918 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(1) Notwithstanding anything in
these rules, where an application is for the
execution of a decree for the payment of
money by the arrest and detention in the
civil prison of a judgment-debtor who is
liable to be arrested in pursuance of the
application, the Court 1 [shall], instead of
issuing a warrant for his arrest, issue a
notice calling upon him to appear before
the Court on a day to be specified in the
notice and show cause why he should not
be committed to the civil prison:

[Provided that such notice shall
not be necessary if the Court is satisfied, by
affidavit, or otherwise, that, with the object
or effect of delaying the execution of the
decree, the judgment-debtor is likely to
abscond or leave the local limits of the
jurisdiction of the Court.]

(2) Where appearance is not
made in obedience to the notice, the Court
shall, if the decree-holder so requires, issue
a warrant for the arrest of the judgmentdebtor."

Order 21 Rule 38. Warrant for
arrest to direct judgment-debtor to be
brought up.

Every warrant for the arrest of a
judgment-debtor shall direct the officer
entrusted with its execution to bring him
before the Court with all convenient speed,
unless the amount which he has been
ordered to pay, together with the interest
thereon and the costs (if any) to which he is
liable, be sooner paid.

Order 21 Rule 40. Proceedings
on appearance of judgement-debtor in
obedience to notice or after arrest.

(1) When a judgment-debtor
appears before the Court in obedience to a
notice issued under rule 37, or is brought
before the Court after being arrested in
execution of a decree for the payment of
money, the Court shall proceed to hear the
decree-holder and take all such evidence as
may be produced by him in support of his
application for execution and shall then
give the judgment-debtor an opportunity of
showing cause why he should not be
committed to the civil prison.

(2) Pending the conclusion of the
inquiry under sub-rule (1) the Court may,
in its discretion, order the judgment-debtor
to be detained in the custody of an officer
of the Court or release him on his
furnishing security to the satisfaction of the
Court for his appearance when required.

(3) Upon the conclusion of the
inquiry under sub-rule (1) the Court may,
subject to the provisions of section 51 and
to the other provisions of the Code, make
an order for the detention of the judgmentdebtor in the civil prison and shall in that
event cause him to be arrested if he is not
already under arrest:

Provided that in order to give the
judgment-debtor
an
opportunity
of
satisfying the decree, the Court may, before
making the order of detention, leave the
judgment-debtor in the custody of an
officer of the Court for a specified period
not exceeding fifteen days or release him
on his furnishing security to the satisfaction
of the Court for his appearance at the
expiration of the specified period if the
decree be not sooner satisfied.
 (4) A judgment-debtor released
under this rule may be re-arrested.

(5) When the Court does not
make an order of detention under sub-rule
(3), it shall disallow the application and, if
the judgment-debtor is under arrest, direct
his release.

Order 21 Rule 41. Examination
of judgment-debtor as to his property.

(1) Where a decree is for the
payment of money the decree-holder may
apply to the Court for an order that-

(a) The judgment-debtor, or
7 All. Dhanush Vir Singh Vs. Dr. Ila Sharma & Ors.
919

(b) where the judgment-debtor is
a corporation, any officer thereof, or

(c) any other person, be orally
examined as to whether any or what debts
are owing to the judgment-debtor and
whether the judgment-debtor has any and
what other property or means of satisfying
the decree; and the Court may make an
order for the attendance and examination of
such judgment-debtor, or officer or other
person, and for the production of any books
or documents.

(2) Where a decree for the
payment
of
money
has
remained
unsatisfied for a period of thirty days, the
Court may, on the application of the
decree-holder and without prejudice to its
power under sub-rule (1), by order require
the
judgment-debtor
or
where
the
judgment-debtor is a corporation, any
officer thereof, to make an affidavit stating
the particulars of the assets of the
judgment-debtor.

(3) In case of disobedience of any
order made under sub-rule (2), the Court
making the order, or any Court to which the
proceeding is transferred, may direct that
the person disobeying the order be detained
in the civil prison for a term not exceeding
three months unless before the expiry of
such term the Court directs his release.

Order
21
Rule
50.
Execution of decree against firm.

(1) Where a decree has been
passed against a firm, execution may be
granted-

(a) against any property of the
partnership;

(b) against any person who has
appeared in his own name under rule 6 or
rule 7 of Order XXX or who has admitted
on the pleadings that he is, or who has been
adjudged to be, a partner;
 (c) against any person who has
been individually served as a partner with a
summons and has failed to appear:

Provided that nothing in this subrule shall be deemed to limit or otherwise
affect the provisions of section 30 of the
Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932).

(2)
Where
the decree-holder
claims to be entitled to cause the decree to
be executed against any person other than
such a person as is referred to in sub-rule
(1), clauses (b) and (c), as being a partner
in the firm he may apply to the Court which
passed the decree for leave, and where the
liability is not disputed, such court may
grant such leave, or, where such liability is
disputed, may order that the liability of
such person be tried and determined in any
manner in which any issue in a suit may be
tried and determined.

(3) Where the liability of any
person has been tried and determined under
sub-rule (2) the order made thereon shall
have the same force and be subject to the
same conditions as to appeal or otherwise
as if it were a decree.

(4) Save as against any property
of the partnership, a decree against a firm
shall not lease, render liable or otherwise
affect any partner therein unless he has
been served with a summons to appear and
answer.

(5) Nothing in this rule shall
apply to a decree passed against a Hindu
Undivided Family by virtue of the
provision of rule 10 of Order XXX.

19. A perusal of the above provisions
shows that the same apply to a judgment
debtor alone who has suffered the decree.
In the case at hand the Revisionist is not the
judgment debtor rather it is M/s Bennett
Coleman & Co. Ltd. which is the judgment
debtor. There is no provision in the CPC
which provides for execution of a money
920 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
decree
against
the
Judgment
Debtor
Company by effecting arrest and detention
of its Employee, Director or General
Manager. Order 21 Rule 50 does provide
for execution of a money decree against a
firm from the assets of the partners of the
said firm mentioned in the Rule but there is
no
provision
with
respect
to
the
Employee/Representative/Director
of
a
Company. The Executing Court cannot go
behind the decree and can execute the same
as per the form only. The decree admittedly
is against the Company. The Executing
Court cannot execute the decree against
anyone including the Revisionist herein
other than the judgment debtor or against
from the assets/properties of anyone other
than the judgment debtor.

20. Sub Rule (1)(b) of Order 21 Rule
41 provides that where a money decree is
against the judgment-debtor which is a
Corporation, the decree holder may apply
to the Court for an Officer of the said
Corporation to be orally examined to
determine the quantum of debts that are
owned by the judgment-debtor and whether
the judgment-debtor has the means of
satisfying the decree. Order 21 Rule 41(2)
provides that on an Application of a decreeholder the Court has the power to require
the
judgment-debtor
or
where
the
judgment-debtor is a Corporation, any
Officer to file an affidavit stating the
particulars of he assets of the judgmentdebtor. Order 21 Rule 41(3) provides that
in case of disobedience of any order made
under Order 21 Rule 41(2), the Court may
direct civil imprisonment of the person
disobeying the said order.

21. The Delhi High Court in the Case
of V. K. Uppal Vs. Akshay International
Pvt. Ltd. reported in Manu/DE/0320/2010
wherein an execution of an Award under
the Arbitration Act, 1996 against the
Judgment debtor Company was sought to
be enforced against the Director the Court
rejecting the Application observed as
under:

"6. The admitted position is that
the arbitration award having force of the
decree is against the judgment debtor
company only and not against its Directors.
The question which arises is whether a
money decree against a Private Limited
Co. can be executed against its Directors.
There is no provision therefor in the CPC.
Order 21 Rule 50 does provide for
execution of a money decree against a firm
from the assets of the partners of the said
firm mentioned in the said rule but there is
no provision with respect to the Directors
of a company. The executing court, as this
Court is cannot go behind the decree and
can execute the same as per its form only.
The decree is against the company. This
Court as the executing court cannot
execute the decree against anyone other
than the judgment debtor or against from
the assets/properties of anyone other than
the judgment debtor. The identity of a
Director or a shareholder of a company is
distinct from that of the company. That is
the very genesis of a company or a
corporate identity or a juristic person. The
classic exposition of law in this regard is
contained in Solomon Vs. Solomon & Co.
Ltd. 1897 AC 22 where the House of Lords
had held that in law a company is a person
all together different from its shareholders
and Directors and the shareholders and
Directors of the company are not liable for
the debts of the company except to the
extent permissible by law."

22. Then again, the Delhi High Court
in the case of Anirban Roy and Others Vs.
Ram Kishan Gupta and others reported in
7 All. Dhanush Vir Singh Vs. Dr. Ila Sharma & Ors.
921
Manu/DE/ 3524/ 2017 while considering a
Petition
under
Article
227
of
the
Constitution of India impugning orders
passed in execution proceedings exercising
powers under Order 21 Rule 41 CPC
directing the Directors of the Judgment
Debtor Company to disclose their personal
assets movable and immovable and issuing
bailable warrants, while allowing the
petition observed as under:-

"I have in V.K. Uppal Vs. Akshay
International Pvt. Ltd. 2010 SCC online
Delhi 538 held; (i) that there is no
provision in the CPC for execution of a
money decree against a Pvt. Ltd company,
against its directors; (ii) that though Order
XXI Rule 50 of the CPC does provide for
execution of a money decree against a firm,
from the assets of the partners of the said
firm mentioned in the said Rule but there is
no provision with respect to directors of a
company; (iii) that the Executing Court
cannot go behind the decree and can
execute the same as per its form only; (iv)
that if the decree is against the company,
the executing Court cannot execute the
decree against anyone other than the
judgment-debtor company or against the
assets and properties of anyone other than
the judgment-debtor company; (v) that the
identity of a director or a shareholder of a
company is distinct from that of the
company--that is the very genesis of a
company or a corporate identity or a
juristic person;(vi) the classic exposition of
law in this regard is contained in Solomon
Vs. Solomon & Co. Ltd. 1897 AC 22 where
the House of Lords held that in law, a
company is a person all together different
from its shareholders and directors and the
shareholders and Directors of the company
are not liable for the debts of the company
except to the extent permissible; (vii) that
though a Single Judge of this Court in
Jawahar Lal Nehru Hockey Tournament
Vs. Radiant Sports Management 149(2008)
DLT 749 observed that there could be a
case where the Court even in a execution
proceeding lifts the veil of a closely held
company, particularly a Pvt.