Full Text
Translation output
% 07.07.2009
61#
Present: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
+ CM Appl. No. 8994/2009 (exemption)
Exemptionis allowed, subjectto just exceptions.
CM Appl. No. 8995/2009 (condonation of delay)
For the reasons stated in this application, delay in filing the presentappeal is condoned.
EFA (OS) No. 23/2009 and CM Appl. No. 8993/2009
In the execution petition filed by the respondent/decree holder, the leaned Single Judge has passed orders dated 04.05.2009 attaching property bearing No. 62, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, which isin the nameofMr. Sanjeev Desai, Director ofthe appellant/
61#
Present: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
+ CM Appl. No. 8994/2009 (exemption)
Exemptionis allowed, subjectto just exceptions.
CM Appl. No. 8995/2009 (condonation of delay)
For the reasons stated in this application, delay in filing the presentappeal is condoned.
EFA (OS) No. 23/2009 and CM Appl. No. 8993/2009
In the execution petition filed by the respondent/decree holder, the leaned Single Judge has passed orders dated 04.05.2009 attaching property bearing No. 62, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, which isin the nameofMr. Sanjeev Desai, Director ofthe appellant/
JUDGMENT
debtor company.
The learned Single Judge has primafacie observed that it is a fit case for lifting a corporate veil. Since remedy of filing objections to the said judgment is available to Mr. Sanjeev Desai, who is allegedly the owner of the said property, it would be open to him to contend that it is not a case where the principle oflifting of corporateveil canbe invoked.
We are of the opinion that the observations made in the impugned order are tentative and primafacie in nature and once theentire
2009:DHC:6839-DB
H matErial is plac6d bGfor© the learned Single Judge, the learned Single
Judge shall determine this issue authoritatively at that stage. In view of this clarification given, the learned counsel for the appellant, seeks permission to withdraw this appeal.
This appeal is dismissed aswithdrawn.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA,J.
July 07, 2009 pmc
2009:DHC:6839-DB
The learned Single Judge has primafacie observed that it is a fit case for lifting a corporate veil. Since remedy of filing objections to the said judgment is available to Mr. Sanjeev Desai, who is allegedly the owner of the said property, it would be open to him to contend that it is not a case where the principle oflifting of corporateveil canbe invoked.
We are of the opinion that the observations made in the impugned order are tentative and primafacie in nature and once theentire
2009:DHC:6839-DB
H matErial is plac6d bGfor© the learned Single Judge, the learned Single
Judge shall determine this issue authoritatively at that stage. In view of this clarification given, the learned counsel for the appellant, seeks permission to withdraw this appeal.
This appeal is dismissed aswithdrawn.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA,J.
July 07, 2009 pmc
2009:DHC:6839-DB