WESTERN PRESS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI versus THE CUSTODIAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 06-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

WESTERN PRESS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI 
v. 
THE CUSTODIAN AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 6, 2000 
[B.N. KIRPAL, DORAISWAMY RAJU AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Trial of offences relating to transactions in securities Act, 1992-
Section 10-Appellant not a party in the proceedings before the court-
Properties of the appellant made liable for realisation of debts-Appellant 
gave an undertaking that it will not alienate or encumber with the properties- C 
Further. chairman of the appellant company filed an affidavit of undertaking-
Held that the properties can be rightly attached for realisation of the dues 
under the decree-Code of Civil Procedure 1908 section 145. 
Registration Act, 1908-Section, 17(/)(b) and 17(2)(vi)-Documents D 
of which registration is compulsory-Consent decree and undertaking-
Does not envisage the execution of any deed or document to create or assign 
any right title or interest in immovable property-Held, that consent decree 
and undertaking does not require compulsory registration as it (ioes not deal 
with immoveable property. 
Public money belonging to banks and financial institutions WllS siphoned 
out into the llccounts of respo11dent No. 5, which in turn siphoned to respo11dent 
E 
No. 6 and from them to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Custodian filed petition 
against the respondents and a decree was passed. Properties of the appellant 
alongwith the properties of the respondents was to be attached for realisation F 
of the dues under the decree. Appellant gave an undertaking to the court that 
on sale in execution, they shall hand over the possession of the premises. 
An affidavit of undertaking was also filed by the Chairman of the appellant 
company. Since there was a default, the custodian filed an application by way 
of execution proceedings against the respondents. Special Court appointed 
a receiver to take possession and to dispose of the properties by sale. G 
Apprehending similar course of action, appellant filed an application pleading 
that the properties cannot proceeded against for realisation of debts. 
Application was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
197 
H 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: I.I. The properties of the appellant can be attached or proceeded 
against in any manner for realisation of the dues under the decree. The 
consent decretal order and an undertaking by the appellant stated that in the 
event of the decree becoming executable, the respondents including the 
appellant undertook to hand over possession of the properties mentioned in 
B schedules, to the purchaser, on the sale being held and sanctioned by the 
special court for realisation of the debts. In carrying out the directions 
contained in the consent decretal order, Chairman of the appellant company, 
filed an affidavit of undertaking and affirmed the factum of ownership of the 
appellant to the property in question. (401-F; 403-H; 404"A) 
C 
1.2. The plea of lack of authority in Chairman of the appellant company 
to bind the appellant is to be rejected because the directors of the appellant-
company, who allowed him a free hand as Chairman of the appellant-company 
to deal with the matter, cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold as it suits 
them. Equally untenable is the pretended mistake of fact which, is a self-
serving attempt found to be made as a pure after thought to wriggle out of 
D the lawful commitments made and retrace the position in which the dire~tors 
of the company have allowed themselves to be landed in. (405-E, F) 
· 
2.1. Declaration or undertaking cannot be construed to fall under 
Section 17(l)(b) of the Registration Act. The consent decree as well as the 
undertaking does not envisage the execution of any deed or documents also 
E to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future 
any right, title or interest whether vested or contigent of the value of Rs. 100 
or upwards in immove:ible property. It would fall within the exempted category 
of any decree or order of the Court envisaged under Section 17(2) (vi) and 
take it outside the excepted category of cases as it does not deal with 
F immoveable property envisaged in Section 17(l)(b) of the Act.1406-D, El 
2.2. In a czse where an item of property is referred to in an undertaking 
given to the Court as one which can be proceeded against in the event of the 
judgment-debtor faili11g to pay the decretal amount within the stipulated time, 
the immoveable prope

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.