{"id":260595,"date":"2009-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009"},"modified":"2017-07-07T10:59:17","modified_gmt":"2017-07-07T05:29:17","slug":"india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"India Builders Corporation vs Masood Asif on 12 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
India Builders Corporation vs Masood Asif on 12 August, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: N.Ananda<\/div>\n
 \n\n \n\nIN 'THE HitI3:H C\".:(}U\u00a7?T' OF' KARNATAKA AT B.\u00a7..:\u00bb%\u00a7\u00a7ALi:\u00a7\u00a72\u00a7\"; .\n\nDATED THIS THE 1-zzm DAY_C}F__AUC\u00a7UST\u00ab ?2{;)(}i.\u00a7:  _ Q \"\nBEF0R3:}.._ ' u  '_ 4' \nTHE H{)N'Bi..E MR;:Jp\".\u00a7fTiCE:. ANA1'jI;IT\u00a7.{3v':...   1.\nCIVIL F<EVISiON  1$;o. 1'g' \n\nBETWEEN:   --_\nInd1'aBui}\u00a7.1\u00a3;rs Corporati<\u00a7Vn_T" V 1   \n"Sheri\ufb01'Centrc"'" 73;'1, st, \u00a3_\\{iark's_  ;, .. \n\nBa11ga1orc--560  _'  _  ' \n\nRey. by its Nianaging F\u00e9u'i3\ufb011t:I'  _   \nMr.Ziauiia_Si2ezj\ufb01'-._ 'V _;  *   \n\nS\/(3. Abdni  Siiv:*.ri4\ufb01"*-ff.  r \n\nAged ai)n1;t65)_jrc\u00a7;33;$V  "  "  ...I'~::tition::r\n\n(By Mfs3.Kamal  'ag\ufb01\u00e9matesz\nAND: % " V' t 4\n\nMr.Ma3o0cL1 ?:s_%\ufb01' \u00bb _ \nCf  Nichoias J'0_\u00a5;1u Milier\n\n V'  _ I{ing\u00a7t:,_::r;. Smith <';\u00a7v,"i~'*::e;u'c1'11s5:r:::.\n . l'}x:vu11us};;:i.1'"c"IFi--z2u:sc, \u20ac30, Guswcll Road\n  I';;;)pn7tio:1v\u00abf;3<3I\u00a7i'!T_'?'A.P.  Respondent\n\n'(By\/"sx-;_  Kamath, mm' Legal, Sri S.'T'.Prashanth\nKu\ufb01zarg Aciv\u00e9ycate 3)\n\n'Tiiis revision petiiion is \ufb02ied under section \u00a315 CFC,\n\n  the nrrier dated 37.\u00a533.2\u20ac109, ptasaeri in \u00a53ix.Nna896j2003,\n311. the \ufb01ie of that: XIX Add}. City Civii Judgs, Bangalari: City,\n\nVtgverxuiing ihe objections raised by the judgment dsbtor tharein 85\n\nThis. revision pctitian mscz\ufb01rcd far csrdcrs on 2'?.O?'.2'C}O9,\nCorning on far pmnnunccment this day, the Court maria the\nfnilnwhxgs\n\n\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
The petitioner {India    u\n\nas judgment debtor in Ex.P.No.896)    ._\n\nof xxx Add}. City Civil 85 at \n\nEx.P.No.895\/2003 is    claim\n<\/pre>\n
No.HC 02000728 dameeg. 1-3; by the High couxt\nof Justice,      hokier is\none  ~.    V   \n\n  were  under\n<\/pre>\n
sectiox;VV’4e;’\u00a7,% (if   to the cause no\ufb01ce issued<\/p>\n
under” Order  2.2 CFC, judgment-debtor \ufb01led<\/p>\n
 ”   The   Court on hearing learned Counsel<\/p>\n
  fee ”   oonsidera\ufb01on of objections statement,<\/p>\n
eve1:n ‘ 11edA  objections. Therefore, judmcnbdehtor is<\/p>\n
1 beige; t\u00a71.1\u00a7s Couxt
\n”    The relevant facts and proceedings necessary for<\/p>\n
   of this petition are as foiierwsh
\n.,   at <\/p>\n
By a. Wxitten agreement dated 29.01.1999. _.-jndia
\nBuilders Comoration and U.K.Part’:11em agreed to
\nand Mazmasooti Asif agreed to seil property  ‘
\n47, Bethnal Green Road, London, _e.1.,._fgr  ”
\nof \u00a33,5\u00a3}0,000I~. A deposit of
\nexchange of contract,  “V:}’i:e_  fer’~  L’
\nexchange of eenizxact vsfas on   .5February
\n1999. The date for   was 25.08.1999.<\/p>\n
M\/3. India Builders eomsaeon ;;…d;gm.;.;..1.b.o.; defaulted<\/p>\n
in co1t1:Vpleti\u00a7_’)ii7e;f  11.08.1999, the eziecrevholder
\nissued iiqtice fag of ecmtzact to the soiicitor of<\/p>\n
_jucigment~debter’e\u00a3ime1_yVAlibi\/s.Kidd Rapinet.<\/p>\n
  “”” 5; the notice, Mfs.Ind:i,a Builders<\/p>\n
  V{i.12%igment–debto1j asserted that it was entitled<\/p>\n
te  file contract and tserminate the agreement On<\/p>\n
 25.08.3.\u00a7’\u00a79, _iud.gment-debtor instituted legal pmoeedings<\/p>\n
 (ie<;:ree-hoider in the Central London County Ceurt,<\/p>\n
  .A eiaiming that notice to eompiete the agreement ciated<\/p>\n
29.01.1999 was invalid and sought for a declaration that it<\/p>\n
   3%..\u00bb<\/p>\n
was entiticd to rescind the conizact, following scn:\u00a3c_c of
\nnotice on 25.08.1999, ciaiming return of deposit
\nalso for an order of i11_i1m(:tion to resttxain the  "<\/p>\n
solicitors from disposing of the deposit, '  H  '<\/p>\n
4. The decree-holder \ufb01led’  of   %\u00bb
\ncounter claim. The notice ”   was
\nsewed on 26.08.1999.\u00a7\u00a7tngi  \u00a72’\u00e9;’0’3’i}V1999, as
\ninstructed by the _i11dg:n’e’:zV1:\u00a7\u00a71c;\u00a7f\u00a7ti;$r:Vstateracnt was<\/p>\n
prepared by     support of an<\/p>\n
intcrio{i1;’tory  M] s. Halsey Lightly, the
\nsoiicitors thai   ‘decree-holder in relation to the<\/p>\n
3313  disp\u00e9si\ufb01g: of  sum of \u00a31’75.000[ — held by them as<\/p>\n
   18.03.2000, Endia Buiiders Corpoxa\ufb01on<\/p>\n
 \ufb01led a \u00e9cftrncc an\u00e9 counter claim. On<\/p>\n
G8.(3’6.2Ci30’v  order was made for removal of M[s.K11dd<\/p>\n
  V .’}”\u20acap:i;n.ctV'{s\u00a5o1icitors ofjudgment-debtnri \ufb01om Conn: rceontis.<\/p>\n
 4__  i,.\u00bb-<.T'f\/(2%: .\n<\/p>\n
\n
5. On 27.01.2060, the decree-holder \ufb02ied <\/p>\n
claim in the Cfcntral London County Court, f<::r_.';'a1:—- .<\/p>\n
that agreement dated 29.(}1.1999__'waisM"iiet';v. '<\/p>\n
tenninated by the judgmentdebtof.fo1j 'dr\u00e9meiges~ <\/p>\n
_iudgInent–debtor for its __to  L'<\/p>\n
and \/ or for breach of contxact.  b<\/p>\n
By" ictter dated   jmglgxnent-debtor
\nexpressed its intention  but in fact,
\ndid not 00. \u00a7'–..3jo.\ufb02 By  eon-;.~V::j; 0 0505 2?.02.2002, the
\npmceeaaags  and transferred from Central<\/p>\n
London   High Ciourt ofJusi1'ce, Chancery<\/p>\n
 _  Lond"\u00a2n,.\u00a7r 0331. On 14.00.2002, notice of trial was<\/p>\n
   \ufb01eeree-ho1der's solicitors on the judg1nent-<\/p>\n
_fi0\u00a71;\u00a7iz1ent debtor was aware of date of trial. The<\/p>\n
'jilci\ufb01znesrjaite ':i'*;i)tor did not appear before the High Court of<\/p>\n
3   Jusjicegfflhancexy Division, London.<\/p>\n
  On consideration of documents, evidence on mcozti<\/p>\n
'   after hearm" g the solicitors of the dec:z'ee~hoEder, the High<\/p>\n
Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Lon\u20acIo1:1,;""'II1\u20ac?1\u00a7\u00a3i\u20ac\u00a7:e_<\/p>\n
decrw, sought to be exeeuted in   <\/p>\n
initiation of Ex.P.No.896\/2003
\njudgment-debtor had no business 0:;\u00aba,5dee$s in   1   'V\n<\/p>\n
6. Before the exmu\ufb01ne  ‘_i’1u:xgi:#;:g1:ne\u00a73t-debtor
\nfiled objection stat:eme1;:i;._ “\u00a7s1:;d  ‘0bjec\ufb01e11  staten1ent
\nand raised the foii\ufb02wiez  ‘V
\nThe .judgngep%i.’%Vdgigd%e\u00e9:. High Court of<\/p>\n
Justice,   \ufb01urportcad to have been<\/p>\n
made \u00e9igaiizstwliidie, Cbrporation (iudgmenbdebtoli.<\/p>\n
The _iudg\ufb01ie;1t–edei3to f:_iswEizot the defendant named in the<\/p>\n
 _ abovze ;futigme1it j?.1dgment~debtor is not aware of any<\/p>\n
   name India Buiiders Corporation Plc. The<\/p>\n
 conclusive. The judgznent-debtor had not<\/p>\n
V _ entered  agreement with decree-holder or his O\ufb01c1aI’<\/p>\n
  , L.\u00a7cg1;;itiaVt:):e. The judgment–debto:r had not entered into an<\/p>\n
  agieeizstem far eatzzsideration of \u00a33,5{}0,0G{1\/-. The judgment-<\/p>\n
  wiebtor is not aware of any entity by name “India Builders<\/p>\n
V Corporation, Pie and U.K. Partners, who are stated to have<\/p>\n
entered into an agreement with Mr.Masood 4′ <\/p>\n
holder). ‘Th: judgzrnclzmdcbtor had not authoris\u00e9gi   <\/p>\n
(signatory to agreement} to <\/p>\n
cimugnstanccs, the judgment-dcbt\u00a3)r__  1109.’  <\/p>\n
favour of decrcc–hoIdcr and \u00a7ic;w%$:i:f:\u00a7I10i\u20acier.1rcd’  V<\/p>\n
an}; enforceable right     _i11dgm\u00a3:i1i~{ic:b\u00a7tor. The
\nentire proceedings   = of Justice.\n<\/p>\n
Chancel];    on the High<\/p>\n
Court of J1;3i$tt_, \u00a3)_ivisi;\u00a7t_1, VL0’I”1hd0I1. ‘I’hcjudg1ncnt.<\/p>\n
debtor: had     wng\u00e9mocver with the decree-
\nholder. %1f;1e__;aa,gn\u00a7cn\u00a341\u00a7b<mr had neither initiated any<\/p>\n
pxooccdingab   Court of Justice, Cihanceiy<\/p>\n
.' V.   Limgdon iibf  appointed any solicitor to enter<\/p>\n
   pmctwdings. The _iu\u00a3ig:11cnt madc by the<\/p>\n
  Justice, Chancery Division, London is a<\/p>\n
 gxoduct' {if fraud played on the judgmenbdcbtor and it is not<\/p>\n
"  before the executing Court. The judgment-debtor<\/p>\n
'  new notice of any counter claim stated to have been \ufb02ied<\/p>\n
'by the decree-holder. The _ju(igment–debtor had po eocasicm<\/p>\n
'}\\?a Q. '\\~– P'~'~""0&45'*'~'<\/p>\n
to challenge the same bcfom the High  ;"\u00e9if' _<\/p>\n
Chanccxy Division, London. The judgment  to   <\/p>\n
enforced is not a judgment on merits,  b1$taii1\u00a2d. <\/p>\n
The judgment is opposed to  \ufb01f  ;ii:1s?t:i\u00a2\u00a3;, z\u00a7s  %\u00bb<\/p>\n
the _iudgment-debtor had   The
\njudgmcnbdebtor had   Hpi\u00a7v<v)ccedings
\nor consolidation of  of pIocccd;In' gs
\nwithout  of  is contrary
\nto the  'C.P.C. Themfore, the
\n   to entertain the
\nexocu\ufb01gn  debtor had not made: a<\/p>\n
Wittlcss Lsta\u00e9f\u00e9i\ufb01\u00e9nt :26.08.1999. This is a false and<\/p>\n
 V'   d9cura}\u00e9ii\u00a3"'I3hc said witness statcmcnt was not<\/p>\n
    Los Angcics on the said date. Th: foreign<\/p>\n
'i1i(EgitLcnt.iS' .1-gadt conclusive and it falls within the puzvicw of<\/p>\n
 ._sub~se<: t'i:::ns 13(b} to (f)  C.P.C. The dccrcctal amount is in<\/p>\n
 't_'!1\ufb01 xli_atI1rc of "penalty. As such decree cannot be executed<\/p>\n
  finder section 44–A of CBC. The Indian Law of Contracts. in<\/p>\n
particular section 74<\/a> of the Indian Contract: Act (ices 130?”;<\/p>\n
A5 ~ A, \u00ab..\u00e9\u00a3\u00a3’?L-\n<\/p>\n
\n
recognise levy of penalty for breach of oemtract. <\/p>\n
the decree is ccmtrary to the law in India.<\/p>\n
7. I have heard Sri S.S1tcvat:’j\u00a7a,
\nfor judgmt-:nt~debtor and Sri; Udaya    <\/p>\n
Counsel for decree-hokicr.\n<\/p>\n
8. Sri S.S1ecvat$.\u00e9a;’1cg:Ag;cc;’ Cpunscl appearing
\nfor judgInent–dc’htQ-r,   \ufb01led by the
\n_iudgmcnt–\u00a2:’i_t:b31;9r’  made following
\n   V
\nI.  \ufb01hould not have entertained<\/p>\n
_ .  ‘pr:3i:it:i\u00a7’)n it;r no11~pmduci1’on of Cicrtifxcate of
\nV\u00bb    the High Court of Justice, Chancery
\n3  T.  fgondon, which is mamiatory under section<\/p>\n
M ‘ 44\u00a2\u00a3\u00a77g\u00a3i::.P.c.\n<\/p>\n
 ii.  aiicged sum of money payabit under the decree,<\/p>\n
A I  purported to be passed against judgment-dcbtar for<\/p>\n
recovery’ of penalty is not cnforccabic under section<\/p>\n
444<\/a>%. of C.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\n
RI.\n<\/p>\n
IV.\n<\/p>\n
M\/s. India Builders Corporation hm  _<\/p>\n
in any of the proceedings referred.  . ‘l’3f;\u00e9  <\/p>\n
judgment is made against <\/p>\n
PIC, which is altogcthmt 3 di\ufb01\ufb01x\ufb01ixt cntit\ufb01ri   %\u00bb<\/p>\n
decree cannot be
\nThe judgment of  .Jus’\ufb01vf\u00a7Ae,VAVV\u00a33han(:cry
\nElivision, London i’s#  played on the
\nma Cm’j%% %%%4   _   %<\/p>\n
The i\u00bb?np1_x”gn\ufb02\u00e9\u00e9i’jud”g:j;cf1t._ zicyt <x)nciusiv\u00a2 and it is not
\ngiven .\u00e9\ufb017mc\ufb01fs. – A'<\/p>\n
TiA1e_13.*o(:eedMM '   judgment is obtained are<\/p>\n
A. -onpos\u00e9tl piin\u00e9ipi\u00e9\ufb01 of natural justice. The judgment
\n sustains a  founded on breach of section 74<\/a> of
\n‘V V ..’C.’ont:x3ct Act.\n<\/p>\n
  statztmcnt statcci to have hem made: by<\/p>\n
 Shcri\ufb02’ is a concocted document;\n<\/p>\n
9. Sri Udaya Holia, learned senior Counsel appmring<\/p>\n
VA    \u00a2:i::::cmt:~hc,3kicr has made following subIn.issions:-<\/p>\n
The production of Certi\ufb01cate of Sa\ufb01s  .<\/p>\n
scc\ufb01on 4443 of C.P.(Z’.. is a    ‘non-‘-\u00e9 ” ” 2<\/p>\n
prcaduction of the same Wouki I1\u00a7J{ \u00a7’3:1l.\u00a7{
\nexecution Ciourt. The    ;\n<\/p>\n
that it had made any
\namgnnt. The  part of
\nthe dccmctal amqun f._  of Justice,
\n   “tb.1;<\u00a7ugh its solicitom,
\nwhicig  Vof the decnw under<\/p>\n
Mi 5;. "C\u00a3)rpora1:.ion is the defendant in<\/p>\n
'.231;   \u00a3ng.\u00e9.-_. \u00a371:-.ic11 uI\ufb01m' atelylended in the<\/p>\n
   """ H  Thcrcfozt, judgment-debtor mnnot<\/p>\n
  to contend that it was not a party to the<\/p>\n
— A   and the judmcnt obtaalcd is a product of<\/p>\n
_ ‘\u00a7;5\u00a7+;d.\n<\/p>\n
 The aufhorisation issued to one Mn\ufb01amid. to cater<\/p>\n
into contract, cnfomcmcnt of contract and initiation of<\/p>\n
claim by the dccrcc–hoidcr were never opwwd in the<\/p>\n
estabiish that India Builders Corporation   *<\/p>\n
Builders Corporation are two _\u00a2_i.i\ufb01’c:_1jc:nt_”c-:1i’1:’ii:iV$:\u00a7’\u00a7v;\u00bb..  4′<\/p>\n
vn. Aftcr transfer of pmcccdings a;*:i.e’LTTH’ig;\u00a7’% <\/p>\n
Justice, Chancery Divi:-:i\u00a7)1;_!V..Lo11’\u00a7io1Vi, theT’:@g-;.egiVV,,r.i1dg e  *<\/p>\n
of the High Conn of   Jfi\ufb02ivision,
\nLondon. having  ‘d\ufb01-gfiiimcnts and witness
\nstatement had n;ad.~3;  i.f:&our of deeme-
\nhoidey,  ‘i1;a-{culminated in the<\/p>\n
 fgot   of natural _iust:1ce.\n<\/p>\n
VIII. ‘:I “h’erc”     opporttmity to judg:u:1cnt-
\ndCbf{}Iu’.. ‘ \u00a331;    was absfcntion of<\/p>\n
.. j’i;(ime\ufb01f-‘d\u00e9il\ufb01fpgji\ufb01nm the impugned proceedings. The<\/p>\n
.,  ‘i1;4g;\ufb01\u00a7\ufb01t5dcbmr has raised frivolous and untenable<\/p>\n
 amid iiahility under the decree.\n<\/p>\n
  *  of rival conmntions raised by psa\ufb02ics and<\/p>\n
  “”sxubn2iSvsi\u00a7>ns of lcamcd tliounsci for names. following mints<\/p>\n
‘    arise for dcttrn1ina1ion:~<\/p>\n
1. Whether production of non–satisf;i\u00e9’ii’m_a…’._!:  A4
\ncerti\ufb01cate in terms of sub-sccti.on””-fizlv  ‘0f ‘
\nsection 44-<\/a>\u00abA CPC is a conditina
\ninittiatc execution pI0ccc(\u00a7ing:;”  :3 ‘A
\n44-A cps? ” ”   ” ” ‘ ‘<\/p>\n
2. Whether the sum pay%\ufb01z1 \u00a2 it;   a
\npenalty and dccyj  ig n\u00a7t%L\u00a2;;{\u00a7rrea,T,i blc  ‘
\nof pmvisions cotifgijlied 44–A of<\/p>\n
3. a ciaim founded on<\/p>\n
__  \ufb01at  iniflndia?\n<\/p>\n
 Corporation was not
\n5   frag: “p;:f'(_*.*ccc:a:iin.g-3., which culxninatcd<\/p>\n
 ‘ ” . iI1  f\u00e9ivour of Mr.Masood Asif (deeme-
\n   …..\n<\/p>\n
?'”V <\/p>\n
 the decree in execution is a pmduct
\nV. cii\u00e9graizd?\n<\/p>\n
‘whemcr judgment made by the High Court of<\/p>\n
Justrim, Chancery Division, London. was not<\/p>\n
given on merits of the case’?\n<\/p>\n
\n
7. Whether proceedings in which judgm\u00e9\ufb01t’   i.- A’ <\/p>\n
obtained are opposed to principlcspf   3 ‘
\nmmmp %%% %   \u00bb *%<\/p>\n
8. Whether the    11.’<\/p>\n
ixltcrfcrtnce?\n<\/p>\n
Rg: Point No. 1:\n<\/p>\n
I 1. Sri S.Smcvavt:A\u00a7.\u00a3;; ‘  appearing
\nfor judgment-dch_tor has   fft’3:.z’\u00abzVt&::’:V”.d:::(‘:rr2c-holder has
\nfailed to   utiie: certi\ufb01cate of non-
\nsatzis\ufb01actiox;    of Justice, Chmcery
\nDivisi\u00e9g,  me Court below did not have
\njuxisc1ic\u00a3ion \ud83d\ude2e  “petition under saction 44–<\/p>\n
A of \u00a7\u00a7.’P..C.\n<\/p>\n
  1 consideration of provisions of sub-<\/p>\n
  44~A C.P.C., i \ufb01nd this is a prcxzctiural<\/p>\n
‘  asp\u00e9c;   does not perta:i:n to jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
  I  13. In a decision rcponcd in A1}? 1%? mnms 45 (in<\/p>\n
 \u00a3433 5-zse qr Sheik Air” Vs. Sheik Mohamet\ufb01, a Full Bench of<\/p>\n
W\ufb01xadras High Court has hcld:-\n<\/p>\n
\n
3′.’
\nO’\\<\/p>\n
….Wc are unable to accept this
\non two grounds. The \ufb01rst isyqhat  ” _
\nreferred to, that before
\nAm, the Indian Courts will
\nto execute the foreign j1iii_ gn;ents’:3nd
\nevent, therefore. there   50f the
\napplication of A_   to Vvfbrinzign
\njudgments. The   S1ib~scc.(l) of
\n8.44-A docs \ufb020t:.’Iii\u20ac;I.:l:i3’e “fh\u00a2 ” a non-
\n‘ :aS\u00b0   for the
\nDismqci   Sub-\n<\/p>\n
AV   does not pertain to
\nju:–:sczic\ufb01on  ..-our vmw’ pxnecdmal; it
\nconf\ufb01iigs .b<:'s.i;ie3  of cvkicntm as to the<\/p>\n
\u00bb4;j'\u00e9o11cIusi\u00a2cz;V1\u00a7$$ of the certi\ufb01cate in the spcc1\ufb01ed'<\/p>\n
A   We  with mspect, unable to agree
\n   Mad LJ 41:2: (AIR 1964 Mad 2:21)
\n  that unless a non-satisfaction
\nA  egg\ufb01\ufb01gate is \ufb01led together with a certi\ufb01ed copy of<\/p>\n
ifomim decree, the mere \ufb01ling of a certi\ufb01ed<\/p>\n
AA '  .__<:apy of the fzymign judgment or ciecrw;-: alone wiil
\n” not west the Disisict Court with jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
execute.”\n<\/p>\n
\n
14. From What has been held by the
\nMadxas High Court in the decision cited supxa,-if is V’
\nthat production of certi\ufb01cation v.r::ef~    u u
\npmcetiurai aspect. Above all, the
\ncase that it had pamy saus\ufb01e\ufb01thg   ;l’:\u00a7-j\u00a7*”‘tl1.’3.e iiigh  *
\nCourt of Jusirice, Chapcety {hat the
\nexecution of decree   of limitation.<\/p>\n
Therefore, I answer  1’\u20ac\u00bbo.::} i1’1.thc zieggitirgie.<\/p>\n
Reg: Pomt.N\u00a7$s,f2  ” ‘V
\n Sri ” _’ ed senior Counsel appeanh g<\/p>\n
for _iudgment\u00a5dei\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7oqr”fefer’fing to Explanation ii to section 44-<\/a><\/p>\n
 _ A of Weuid \u00a7’1}\ufb013′?’J}]’.t that decree sought to be executed<\/p>\n
 .A~i$’\u00ab.fQ1″ of penalty. The High (301111: of Justice,<\/p>\n
 London, has accepted forfeiture of<\/p>\n
\u00a31′?F:,0C3\u00a7f ‘–‘,’ stated to have been deposited by the judgmezm<\/p>\n
3  deb_:or, ii.; adsiiticmn has levied damages by way of penalty of<\/p>\n
   \u00ab, which is new sought to be recovered before the<\/p>\n
 T   below.\n<\/p>\n
  aw. c:>—~– mt <\/p>\n
16. The Icamcd senior Counsel placing  _<\/p>\n
judqj of Supreme Court, reported in AIR ‘195\u00e9o;s:;C-ij\u00a79.s’  . .V <\/p>\n
the case of Fateh Cfhand Vs.  <\/p>\n
that under section 74 of the Indian      L.<\/p>\n
covenant for forfeiture of    of
\ncontract, that wouid be ‘The  senior
\nCounsel wouid further  Court in the
\nafomstatod _jm}dgfo;\u00a7’:nt   between the
\nprovisions    —   Contract Act<\/a> and
\n  terms of contract and
\nsupumocg  “cf penalty. Thus, decree under<\/p>\n
execution  a  contrary to section 74<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
” V’  A :;1&;g&1 Contrac’  t magga it is not enforceable in India.<\/p>\n
   1 Qdaya Holla, teamed senior Counsel appearing<\/p>\n
 would submit that what has been awarded<\/p>\n
 under” impugned decree is damages and not penalty.<\/p>\n
V’ =  18. The learned senior Counsel for dc<:ree–hoIdcr,<\/p>\n
"  I\u00e9erymg on the judgment reported in AIR 1958 Keraia 1:25 (in<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
the law of the country where the oonI:m.\u00a7:_t_ ‘ <\/p>\n
made (icx loci oontractus) and as a    \u00ab<\/p>\n
presumption: “when the conufapt is   ‘–
\ncountry, and is to be pcrforngcd \u00bb\u00a2i ti1c1″” X A
\npartly in another, then the  lav\u00a7_..of .t’.i:1e”
\ncontract may be   th\ufb02.\n<\/p>\n
country where the perforiiImV1<:cu is id   –<\/p>\n
(lcx ioci solutio}aisi};??\u00ab_  – M
\nIn the casepn    agreement and
\nxtconis rclatixsgvg’  ”  had entered into<\/p>\n
agreement     No.39~4?, Bcthnal’<\/p>\n
Gmcn  V’ Liizzgi\u00e9an ; for total consideration of<\/p>\n
\u00a33.$(30.CX3i3,{f;  was mortgaged to the City<\/p>\n
 , \ufb02  a\ufb01i’-\u00bbI::;_\u00a7gf1Aa;:hargc was held by the City (Europe)<\/p>\n
   ‘decfeajholdcr {Mr.Masooci Asi\ufb02 was paying intcrcst<\/p>\n
  The Lcanned Judge of the High Court of<\/p>\n
 Division, London, dealing with claim for<\/p>\n
H u   ‘   ciamag\u00e9\u00e9 ‘has heki:-\n<\/p>\n
“\u00a36. The breach of contract being Em my
\njudgment crystal clear, what are the
\ncensequenoes? Those are clear, foihwing the<\/p>\n
\ufb01t?’  ‘ k_&k.:,,,,.O,(_g\\.\n<\/p>\n
\n
provisions of conditions 7.5.1 and 7.5.2. If <\/p>\n
buyer fhils to complete in accordance   A’ <\/p>\n
no\ufb01cc to complete, the following  ‘M
\n“The seller may rescind the .c\u00a3mtr&act’.   iii:
\ndoes so he may forfeit and  my;  A’
\naccrued interest; he may :cscii’t}\u00a7\u00e9V.pmp\u00a7ri\u00a7.r;t   <\/p>\n
three, he may claim damag\u00e9s,”\n<\/p>\n
17. Mr.As;=\u00a7%s the deposit, to
\nkeep it and  “IV.   Clear and
\ntherefore: it secm s’ ‘\u00a39 iimve “ii: shouki<\/p>\n
have  to <)iV1t.i\u00a7fV:iZ'a\u00e9a11rt..t:11at sum and<\/p>\n
 """   \ufb02it"  with the
\n of 'Which has taken place,
\n ot}:er"r\u00e9\u00a7i\u20acf*-\ufb01x\ufb01t is sought is a claim \ufb01r<\/p>\n
_It:1\u00e9xti1ig it; the \u00a31?5,000 ncver paid.\n<\/p>\n
”    ‘ damages is advanced by<\/p>\n
 on the basis of the decision of<\/p>\n
_  Millichamp V. Jones [1982] 1 WLR
\n V  particular at 1430 and upon that of the
\n‘ .33\u00a7;ag’o\u00a3’ity of the Court of Appeal in the case of<\/p>\n
Eamon Cm Navicra SA V Hapag Lloyd<\/p>\n
 International SA 11935} IWLR 435, and in<\/p>\n
particular fhc passages which Mr.Gr\ufb01t.hs relied
\non at pages 450, 481, 452 and 45?. Those
\ndecisions and conditicsn ‘?’.5. 1 provide<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
Mr.G;~if1:iths with support, but the
\nprovisions of 7.5.2 are probably of thcm\u00a7ci\u00a7’cs\u00a7 ‘\u00a7W <\/p>\n
su\ufb01cient to justify the claim of    is A<\/p>\n
foxwaxd. The Courtwiil then:-icy; bawazvi’ * _<\/p>\n
of \u00a3173,000 and interest oi\ufb01 <\/p>\n
conttactuai rate contained  \ufb01um”  <\/p>\n
\n\n26*' I\ufb02thrtlmy 1999.\" ' ' A\"  AV\n\n21. Therefore, 5,; oamm    of\ndamages, according to    between\n\nparas' s is a pcna1i3r_    of Justice,\n\n<\/pre>\n
  Tix}i;1don.”_”VV”i’i’1c judgment awarding
\ndamagcst as .. not contravene provisions of<\/p>\n
scctiqxy  “:}.1c].  Contact Act. The paras’ 5 had<\/p>\n
   <*t~ii1 U.K., in respect of property situate<\/p>\n
    acljudica\ufb01on of damages by applying<\/p>\n
  R ct: be termed as brcacli of any law in force<\/p>\n
 in  fhc cizcumstanccs, it cannot be hc\ufb02 that decree<\/p>\n
V' \u00bb \u00e9xcc\ufb01\ufb01on is being enforced to recover penalty as stated<\/p>\n
 gm Explanation 11 to sectiien 44\u00bb–A C..P.C. It is also not<\/p>\n
 mfaossihlc to hold that decmc sustains a claim founded on<\/p>\n
breach of section ?'4 of the Indian Contract  _<\/p>\n
reasons, points 2 35 3 are ansvmred in the ncgsxi\ufb01a, V <\/p>\n
Reg: Faint Nos. 4 8:. 5:\n<\/p>\n
22. It is the <:ontentics:1_ of  ,;'t1<'i';z,:u1cnt.-\ufb01r;V1;::t:o:'\u00a3*  L\u00bb<\/p>\n
8111121" em Corporation) that  n\u00a2$t*\u00bb.a\u00a7"  rt} to the
\nproceedings. The .11I1<_i:\u00a2\u00e9rV_  is  f\ufb01roduct of<\/p>\n
fraud.\n<\/p>\n
23. The   appcarixlg for<\/p>\n
_judgmcnt-(ii-;btg$i;_\u00bbV 2 of agn=:e_ mcnt dated<\/p>\n
29.01:’;99Q–  India Builders Corporation
\nhad not ax14ti1o\ufb01;sk;cVi to sign the agmcment. In the<\/p>\n
agrcg\ufb01mcnt d\u00a221t’cx;i:  1999, the buyer has been described<\/p>\n
 3;.r:LD\ufb01\u00a7i%\u00a7s CORPORATION of Shcri\ufb01” Centre,<\/p>\n
  1,’ ViA;[\u00ab%,<3t.\u00a7;ra:ks Road, Bangalore-560 001 India and UK<\/p>\n
P\u00e9iitzaers' of 16.1; 163, Commercial Road, London, E1 LDA".<\/p>\n
AA '   The icarxmd senior Counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
 u_\u00a7':?1\u00a3ig9Ament-debtsr, mftzrring to various documants would<\/p>\n
 ""\u00a7ubm:;t that in the Ciaim Form stated to have been <\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
by judgxncnt-debtor (Claim No.CL953063),  ‘
\nLondon County Court, the claimaxgthas bc\u00e9ii’  as u V’
\n“INDIA BUILDERS CORPORATION v;PLt”3g’C *fhe\u00a7;’  <\/p>\n
to have been instituted by sol;3\u20ac:_ii:9;:s of M<\/p>\n
25. The Icamedv Sf.;’I3,i0I”wA*’.’f\u00a7’)1′ j;idVgm\u00e9iv;t–debtor
\nWouid further submit  by the High
\nCourt of Justziagrc;   the claimant
\nhas been  j.f\u00a7\u00a7D_I\u00a7”~”_EijII,D\u00a7RS CORPORATION
\nPLO”,   ‘A  for Private limited
\nCompa;:.y).r   the: claimant has been<\/p>\n
described’ V’:-1\u00a7 ” in\ufb01ia  Corporation plc. Therefore,<\/p>\n
 _iudg11_’\u00a7: c\ufb01*ix-dcbtdr” nfsthing to do with the India Buikiers<\/p>\n
   Therefore, Icarncd senior Counsel<\/p>\n
 _j\u20ac\u00a7d”g.mant-debtor would submit that judgment-<\/p>\n
‘ VV _ dcbicr was l\ufb01st a party to the aforestatcd proceedings.<\/p>\n
”   The kamed senior Counsel appearing for decree\u00bb<\/p>\n
 hAr before<\/p>\n
the Central London County Court. In the <\/p>\n
claimant has been described as “inmaf_jLLB:.;m\u00a7Ei\u00e9S’T <\/p>\n
CORPURATIGN PLC”. The addmss of’thf=.   V’<\/p>\n
as “sheri\ufb01” Centm, 73\/1, st.1\\rI.’.;<'s;::1<'\u00a7 " <\/p>\n
560001". In the particulars (if  'Been  V<\/p>\n
described as "INDIA BUILDERS–{?\u00a7E?PGRATfC}\u00a5\u20acv'….. <\/p>\n
2?'. The learned    for decree-\nholdcr would     were to be any\n<\/pre>\n
disxcIt:panc};”i;i’   of the party in the
\ndecmevivv-Ashzili V   = ;d\u20ac-scription of party ‘ in the<\/p>\n
judgn1cnt;”  by the High Court of Justice,<\/p>\n
 _  DiV\u00b0i\u00a7s’i'(‘JrI1:,_I{)’I’).\u00a31OIl, the claimant has been described<\/p>\n
 as\u00bb   Corporation”. In the circumstances,<\/p>\n
  judgmc11t–debtor that India Buiidcrs<\/p>\n
 1:02: a party to the proceedings cannot be<\/p>\n
:28. In order to apprtrsciats above contentions, it is<\/p>\n
necessary to state that _;’nrlmcnt~dcb’tor has not given<\/p>\n
N   -\u00ab.J\u00a3\u00ab-\n<\/p>\n
\n
particulars of \ufb01aud, wine’ 11 mm” ahcly lad  =5;  <\/p>\n
agreement dated 29.0I.1999. It
\nsaid Mn\ufb01amid, without being any  i:._a\u00a2.i
\nthe: agreement dated 29.o1 .–  ” V
\nbetween India Builders  Cztntixsiiand Mr.
\nMasood Asif, more  shown that he<\/p>\n
had any bene\ufb01t \u00a2g.s1\u00a2envc”\ufb01oa:5;tac~\u00ab$+wi\u00a7 <\/p>\n
29. If is   frt)\ufb01’ ftv.p’*\\ \u00a3-I ggr\u00e9ggne\ufb01t dated 29.01.1999,
\nthe b;:y\u00e9:*’  as “INDIA BUILDERS
\nCORP():RA'”f’I_0N hf 73:1, 1, St.Marks Road,<\/p>\n
Eangalorc-513%   UK Partners of 161\/163,<\/p>\n
 2   ‘Landon, E1 LDA”. These are two di\ufb01hxent<\/p>\n
A   }\ufb02 1c \ufb01rst instance, thc claim was  by<\/p>\n
  ‘-Eadia  Corporation before the Central London<\/p>\n
   Court for foilowing IeIk:fs:–\n<\/p>\n
K  i_._ A declaration that the purported notice: te compiete<\/p>\n
referred to in paragraph ii) was invaiid.<\/p>\n
 .   “””‘Q{&C<\/p>\n
27<\/span><\/p>\n
2. A declaration that the claimant was entitled to rescind
\nthe contzact and has so mscimied.\n<\/p>\n
3. Aitcrnatively to 2 rescission of the contract.<\/p>\n
4. The return of the deposit referred to in   % _\n<\/p>\n
5. An injunctzinn mstraining the   ‘\ufb01o1i13
\ndisnosi\ufb02g sf the deposit.    ‘     V’  ‘\n<\/p>\n
6. Intexest as aforesaid pursuagt to stating.
\n‘2’. Further or other relief.” ‘V V\n<\/p>\n
31. The claim  wss   1999 by
\none Mxxlllavid.  of  14 as<\/p>\n
15. Craven   <\/p>\n
  counter qlaim made by<\/p>\n
the tiecI’cc:i;r;$Itir:xf,    mat is shown as “India Bmki’ crs<\/p>\n
 .   ‘p1<\u00a7"',""pIE$11n1abi'y going by the description in an<\/p>\n
   in Ciaim No.CL953063 by the judm<:n'\u00a3:-<\/p>\n
'\ufb01itf\ufb01mr.  statement made by Mzzziauiia Shcn\ufb01 ,<\/p>\n
–V be sag  himself as the Managing P31111163′ of India<\/p>\n
K x V’ Cergatyratrioxz. The genera} form ofjudgmcnt made by<\/p>\n
.’    Court of Justice, Chancery Division, London, the<\/p>\n
T  VV  has been described as India Builders \u20ac30:-poratien<\/p>\n
rkx <\/p>\n
PLC, “Shem Centre”, v3\/1, Sthliarifs Road,
\n00.1. The judgxzncnt-ciebtor has not  _
\nto show constitution of India
\nBuiidcm Corporation plc    th\u00bba.1:t”_ t1’Aje3r’~
\n(ii\ufb01ertnt entities. in any    of
\nproceedings, India Eiuilzigrs  ist  to the
\npmceedings. The dccm<;1i:.a&\u00a3i  of J11StiC\u20ac,,
\nChanccxy    inciia Buiidcrs
\nCorpo1~a\ufb01o1V1;"  :31" ' _;";1dgmcnt-debtor that
\nIndia    not a party to the
\nmwdmgs <\/p>\n
5 ' in the.Vobj\u00e9c'\u00a3:i:on 'vstz\u00e9tcment filed by judgment-dabtor, it<\/p>\n
 " is   _iu(ig \u00a7\ufb01{\u00e9nt sought to be executed is }.f(%:\u00a7aBC:w{lt. Mr.Ziaui1a Sheri\ufb01’ had IZIGI entered into ageemcnt<\/p>\n
‘   Mrjviasood Asif or his Official Liquidator toggurchasc<\/p>\n
%\\’~ <\/p>\n
29<\/span>
\nproperty beaxing No.39-4’7, Be\ufb01mal Green Road, Lond_V11\u00ab–_zt:if_’\\&;roI\u00a7’b:V$L; ” *–\u00a5gg;s\ufb01”~4F\u00a7I1gcit\u00b0g:=. A after the
\nsignature of Mriiaulkx   to an inference
\nthe witness  \u00ab  dated  1999
\nwas pmpaxied   ‘\u00a7-\ufb01i\ufb01xess statement was not
\nnota\ufb01\ufb01gd    C’1′{)f.E”\u00a7m\ufb01;OK hear any of\ufb01ciai stamp
\nto  that’  at Los Angclcs.\n<\/p>\n
,– 53:3. m”a..,deei?sio:~: r\u00e9faorzeci in AIR 1974 st: I764′ (in the<\/p>\n
A   s;\u00ab,f=  “” ‘Gmndan Vs. Laics hrni Bhamihi and<\/p>\n
   Court while dealing with provisions; of<\/p>\n
sea\u00e9i\ufb01ion V   ‘$5.8. has heid:–\n<\/p>\n
“The fraud which vitiatcs a judgment: must<\/p>\n
AA ;  gcneraiiy be fraud of the party in whose favour<\/p>\n
‘ that judgment is obtained.”\n<\/p>\n
g\/\\7 \\  -\u00abW 51-\u00bb –  w<\/p>\n
In the cast: on hand, judgment-debtor <\/p>\n
particulars of fraud. The judgment-debtor  e  <\/p>\n
that decree-holder had piayed eeee fey
\nclaim No.CL953\u20ac)63 before the, t_.’,’cnt’:;’aiA
\nin the name of _iudmn\u00a2nt-date-t{31;,V:VV”‘\u00a32}*  of
\nSolicitors namcky M’f~\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7   The
\njudgment-debtor has 110;’  had any
\nmo\ufb01vcs to  \ufb01~e;i\u00a3et;   The ciaim
\ninstituted bereage    Court on the
\nsuenm\u00e9hu    and subsequent<\/p>\n
defcnocAs\u00a7at\u00a3ment a;i:1d?\u00bb\u00a2c:;t:ir;i:\u00e9r claim made by decree-hokicr<\/p>\n
and J .\u00a3ndep\u00a3nd\u00a7nt. ‘W maria by decree-holder would<\/p>\n
 V’   that jud\ufb01ii\u00e9iii-debtor entered into agreement dated<\/p>\n
  i. that decree-hakicr to purchase property<\/p>\n
 i3_3:\u00a7?~47, Bcthnai Green Raad, London E1, for<\/p>\n
“v…conskieV1’j\u00e9\u00a7;tion of \u00a33,500,0(}0]– and a sum of \u00a3l.’?ES,O()0\/ — was<\/p>\n
V’:L:V’_t\u00a3.;c:;:Lki\u00a7#itcd by ‘judgment-dcbtar. in thc absence of pa\ufb01riculars<\/p>\n
‘  ($1? fraud, the contention of judgmcllbdcbtor that dcCrce-<\/p>\n
‘4 holder had pietycd fraud cannot be accepted. The decree-<\/p>\n
‘y\\5 ‘   pka,-~CLA_-\n<\/p>\n
\n
holder did not stand to gain by initiating Claim
\nin the: name of judg:u1cnt–dcbtor before thc  ,\n<\/p>\n
34. In the discussioxr ” .\u00a7irpra, 1    ,<\/p>\n
reference t9 the claim made   was<\/p>\n
the action of \ufb01xst instagjizc    parties.<\/p>\n
As ceuld be seen from   of Justice,
\nChancery   v\ufb01mm consolidated
\nand   Chancery Division,
\nLondogig ‘   had abstained {mm<\/p>\n
procecdin\ufb01\ufb01y\u00e9  T,’hiis_,  made by _iudmem–debtor<\/p>\n
 _ \ufb01zxai:  ;j_ud\u00a7;ment is a product of fraud played by<\/p>\n
 9n the High Court of Justice, Chancery<\/p>\n
 “i7\u00a5iV\\}\u00a3ss,\u00a7oii, and the judgment-dcbtcr cannot be<\/p>\n
acc\u00e9ptcaig . * ”\n<\/p>\n
 AA  33:11: is man from mcords, judgm,ent–dcbtor had \ufb01led<\/p>\n
  ofgicc\ufb01ons statement on 23.07.2805, inter alia contending<\/p>\n
   cntim proceeding is a product of \ufb01and playcd on the<\/p>\n
High Caurt of Justice, Chancery Division, London. It is<\/p>\n
fz\\3(  V \u00a37; xx\u00bb 4′-:’L\u00e9~=’<\/p>\n
contended that the judgment sought to be cnfomggi <\/p>\n
a product of fraud played on the High ref   <\/p>\n
Chancel? Division, London.\n<\/p>\n
On 27.02.2005, the dccrcc~1:i\u00a2:.~:c1Lc7[rA_T1:TasTJ <\/p>\n
following documents?\n<\/p>\n
SLNO. Date ” ” VA _[ ” ”\n<\/p>\n
1 ‘l?,9.01,1999__ Cgipy’  _thaf–3g:memCent entered into
\n  h\u00e9twcteii  ‘\ufb01okier (Sella) and the<\/p>\n
_.  ~ 4’  Ju.dg\ufb01\u00a3:nt..’De’utor (Buyer)<\/p>\n
2 2\u20ac3.08.\u00a7;9\u00a539 ‘ ‘f:3\u00bb:’)}?’I’:’y’.. ‘> cif  Witness statement of<\/p>\n
3  ‘\u00a7:$\u00e9’teis\u00e94;:f_V  Cr,\u00bbp5,;’ of me rt-:p1y to defence and
\n 19.99.  “defends: \u00a30′ counter claim<\/p>\n
4 ‘2’?.02.2DfO’2 .j’=Copy’~o:~ the judgment passed by the
\n ” ”  Court of Justice, Chancery
\nDw\ufb01bn<\/p>\n
5  1.3.o3.*i2aQ 1 Copy of the letter addressed to the
\n‘-  ” V “””;}udg1:11t::i1tDc}:stor<\/p>\n
    Copy of the letter addressed to the<\/p>\n
Judgment Debtor<\/p>\n
H?   Capy of the witness statement of<\/p>\n
Robert Ivor Wi\ufb02iam Wilson<\/p>\n
}F}:3\u00a7\u00e9maftcr, on 04.08.2006, the 3uc1gmem–dchtor \ufb01led<\/p>\n
 ‘.%a.1:1ii:;ena1 objection statement, inter alia contending that<\/p>\n
  hbvjg\u00e9itncss siatcmcnt allegedly manic by Mr\ufb01iaulla Sheriff on<\/p>\n
26.08.1999 is a concocted document and it was not exccutseci<\/p>\n
A}  K\/.. gjyx \\\/K  I<\/p>\n
by M:.ziau11a Shcri\ufb01’. The copy of passport   _<\/p>\n
show that Mr.Ziauila She\ufb01\ufb01was no\u00a7.in\u00bbU.S.fi\u00a7’ 61-” :33vf*g,_V  ” ” ‘V<\/p>\n
on 26.08.1999. Thus, it can cicarlyv’-be  <\/p>\n
is played by decree-holder anc.\u00a7. o’:1;e1’s   <\/p>\n
35. Thus, we \ufb01:1d_ ma1%”‘\u00a7\u00a7au\u00a7;  “at._t1ib1t1At1-:1*, it was well withm’ the
\nknowledge of ,iud\u00a7g3u;ent~<i\u00e9b\u00a3cf  the objection statement
\nwas \ufb01ltxi b_',\u00a5%jiidgv;mcnf4d4:V7L:)v1\u00a7or\ufb01n 23.07.2005. Thus, we \ufb01nd<\/p>\n
 __ has taken up ail tenable and<\/p>\n
  defeat the decree.\n<\/p>\n
  A arm p1t*;’a df fraud pheaacd by judmcniadcbtor in the<\/p>\n
  is\ufb01gtcmtnt med on 23.07.2005 is not attributed to<\/p>\n
 V\u00e9fec\ufb01f\u00e9\u00e9-\ufb01aoider or any ot\ufb01ar person. In the additional<\/p>\n
  stammcnt \ufb01ltzd on 04.08.2006 {after a lapse bf one<\/p>\n
N    0  <\/p>\n
year), the judwe:nt–dcbtor has contended that fraud has<\/p>\n
been played on High Court of Justice, Chancery <\/p>\n
London by the dccme-holder and other persons  <\/p>\n
the alleged transaction.\n<\/p>\n
37. in the objection statczncni:\n<\/p>\n
ju(:igm_e11t~dcbtor has dcnicei      <\/p>\n
proceedings before the High  of V<\/p>\n
Division, London. How\u00e9vgr, th\u00e9ii:”i\u00e9{ n6rden1a’ i 6f’ii{v1stitu1:ion<\/p>\n
of Claim No.CL953063 mu;  County Court.<\/p>\n
In the  of e\u00a3j\u00a2\u00a2tion \ufb01led on 04.03.2005,
\nthe juagmemdctgt\u00e9jxfixasg”not denied Claim No.CL953\u20ac)63<\/p>\n
instifmtcd  _if1dgI.\u00a31eii’i-(Vi\u00e9i:)tor through its Solicitors namely<\/p>\n
 V’  .  “Ra;3in\u00a3:\u00a3” “” “‘Fi1ercfoxt:, the judgment-debtor has<\/p>\n
    of fraud to avoid Liability of decree under<\/p>\n
t:x.:_c\u00a7111:ioI1.–“i’5?g;1*’ “these reasons, points 4 & 5 are answered in<\/p>\n
Q’ the n\ufb01g\ufb01\ufb01vc.\n<\/p>\n
M 3eg;=’i?oint Nos.6 85 7:\n<\/p>\n
38. The jucig1ncnt~debt’m” has contended that judgment<\/p>\n
of tht: High  sf Justice, Chancery Division, London was<\/p>\n
not given on merits of the case anti pxocceditg\ufb01s
\njudgxnent was obtam\u00b0 ed are opposmifo     V<\/p>\n
natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
39. Before advcrt:EI1gV “mess   is
\nnecessary to state V ‘t\u00a7.1_st  taken
\npezvercating and   j\ufb01ldgment-debtor
\nhad denied  was   pmceedings.\n<\/p>\n
The   that defendant in the
\nabove   Gorporation pic and
\nnot   ” {$1 ” order to plead denial of<\/p>\n
opport111:if\u00a7=,4 i’ud;\u00a7ft:1\u00e9\u00a71t~t1sE:;’tor has not admitted that it had<\/p>\n
 _ A’  ~ 2V1udVic’3ic:cv_____j1). the impuwcd proceedings. The<\/p>\n
  has blown hot and mid.\n<\/p>\n
”  41′) judgment made by High Court: of Jus\ufb01cc,<\/p>\n
  Division, London, the icarncd Judge has held:-<\/p>\n
V _ ” “:2. The \ufb01rst point with which I am concerned is
\n‘A that although this is the iris} of the action, imiia
\nBuiidcxs Corporation Pic is not pmscm: or
\nmpmscnted. it is the case that india Buikiers<\/p>\n
11’\u00bb-.  :9–x  =<\/p>\n
took an active part in the litiga\ufb01on at   j”
\nindeed. they brought one of the ac\ufb02oz_1sV_ :ti1Vv  ._
\nCentral London County CfJ1’ii”t’*\u00abanr1A
\ninterim mjunctiens in the that.  :\n<\/p>\n
ceume of time, however; they have oeageti ‘ut.o__be <\/p>\n
Iepresented in these pt=c:e’e.ed1ngs;—-
\nfrom the evidence} haveAVheeId  morningwesind
\nalso from lettersa.  ” solicitors,
\nKim?) Rapinctm, to be_fd11i1\u00e9i  \ufb01le. It
\nwould appe.3__1_”  V’   Repmet euccessfuily
\nappliecj  :i\ufb021c~. J  be  from<\/p>\n
 Even   V’Bu\ufb025ders are not present or<\/p>\n
 it seems clear to me<\/p>\n
_ heyon\ufb01’ d_euhi’~th\u00e9zt  have been given notice of
\n  “aaiti. V_refe1A5 ____  to the two witness
\n”  stefements of Mr.Robe1″t Wiison in which he
\n. 2   of various applications and evems<\/p>\n
 in t.h’ee:’\u00a7i1igation and exhibits faxes received \ufb01mn
\n Iz11″iija \u00a7u1’1dezs on a couple of occasions earlier<\/p>\n
 year. Se it seems to me clear beyond cioubt<\/p>\n
  H India Burildezs, despite their absence, are<\/p>\n
aware if these proceedings and, as is their right,
\nhave elected not to attend.\n<\/p>\n
\n
4. I should next emphasise that this is the <\/p>\n
of the action. This is not a hearing relating fat)”
\ndefault judgxxaczxt because those    -1-
\nMr.Asif have sought a full trial
\nWish to enforce any judgmcnfc;  they
\nabroad, and in par\u00e9zicuiar inI:1’adi;;i_}_T1i that
\nI have heard cvidcnccstmiay    .<\/p>\n
Indian advocate, in  ‘f _ it
\nstatement, and    a ‘N\u00a7r.Fai\u00a3ia,<\/p>\n
who has, in Mr.   England
\nmay. con\ufb01rmed tI1c,:’%icc’\u00a7i\u00a7i’a%;y “dfV\u00a7#1:j\u00e9;t-Vis said by<\/p>\n
Mr. Mittzf: ins ugamgss s:aii\u00a2i;;e,:;t,fV\u00a7*r;:us being a<\/p>\n
    not only with the:\n<\/p>\n
  from witnesses, the
\n h\u00e9vc just zc\ufb01zrrcd to, and aiso
\n_; ‘ :v::.Re\u00a2d;\u00bb 1’ _1\u00a7Ir;Mii1cr, Mr.E-Eowkcr, Mr.McMir:hac1<\/p>\n
 -ajaparcnt that’ judgment-debtor after ini\ufb01ating<\/p>\n
 h\u00a7\u00a7;);Ci\u00a79$3063 before the (tantra! London County Cami<\/p>\n
  with counter claim made by the decree-<\/p>\n
 Thcreafter, the Ccntxal London County Court<\/p>\n
  _\u00bbv_\u00a2\u20ac)nso}i”iate:d the claim of judgment-debwr; counter claim<\/p>\n
and independent ciaim of \u20aciecrcc~hoIdcr and transferxtzxi the<\/p>\n
‘5’\\?. \u00bb\\,C7””””” Cigk<\/p>\n
same to . the High Court of Justice, Cihancexy Digjsion,
\nLondcm. The judgmenvdebtor being fully awam:
\nproceedings did not participate in the  .
\nHigh Court of Justice, Chancery …D.i_\\{isi):t1″,”   ‘”‘
\nieamcd Judge of High Court of
\nLondon has held that if is     *
\ndefault jucigment. The dccmc-h\u00a7mgr    fun trial
\nbecause he had to    particular<\/p>\n
in India.     i ‘  ”\n<\/p>\n
?phe-  mac ava\ufb02ame copy of order
\npassed bgmle  County gear: to estabiish that<\/p>\n
13.of\u00a7<\u00a7\u00a7:e'Voi7 the  after ccmsoljdation of the reference<\/p>\n
.   of Justice, Chancery Division, London was<\/p>\n
 "ji\u00a5<im.ent–debtor. Thus, the judgtmenbdebtor<\/p>\n
 novt:\u00e9k::;;'ied to participate in the pxueccdings before High<\/p>\n
3   ('m__."11't  Justice, Chancery Eiivisieon, London. The learned<\/p>\n
j1i'si;\u00a7e of the High Cellrt 0f Jusaioe, Chancery" Division,<\/p>\n
 "  -mndon, on consideration of averments of claim made by<\/p>\n
judgme1:1t~deb1':or, counter claim and independent claim<\/p>\n
A} u C ;4:_,\\\\\\'\/K  \ufb01<\/p>\n
made by the decree-holder and statements of wi.t\ufb01:e'sses,<\/p>\n
rendered the judg:a:aent on 08.10.2002. The <\/p>\n
has referred to contents and conditions of   .\u00a2  <\/p>\n
29.01.1999. The learned Judge  <\/p>\n
dated 29.01.1999 has held that 0115 i\\Er.Ha1nic1  sigm\u00a7ie–V.e<\/p>\n
the agreement as duly autho\ufb01S\u00a7{i~..py that'  VV<\/p>\n
Judge has also heki thatpo j\u00e9aiiihe\ufb01ty  because
\nof wimess statement ma'dVc.'\u00a73j% (judgment.<\/p>\n
debtor) in    when Mr.<\/p>\n
Ziaulles;VSiieii1″S.:i3a\u00a7i\u00bb:vA$\u00a7eug\u00a7it’.’en\u00a2 igxjiinction. The learned Judge
\nhas refeireci :9 t.”1e”;’Z’\u00a7\u00a7e1eS’,’* ultjmateiy resulted in breach<\/p>\n
of contract  j\u00a7l1e.j\u00a5;1d\u00a7mei:;t–debter and also subsequent sale<\/p>\n
 V’  of  “{suhieetV’h:1;\u00e9i:ter of contract). The learned Judge of<\/p>\n
 High’ 1′:\u00a7:v:;\ufb01\u00bbv46\u00a7Te_\u00a7J’:;stice, Chancery Division, London, referring<\/p>\n
td ee\ufb01ditie\ufb01e (if contract and Witness statemenm. reigning on<\/p>\n
‘r__eertain s:i’ecisions has heid that decrce~hoIder has right to<\/p>\n
A “::”fQxV’f\u00e9:”i~\u00a7t deposit and 3130 entitled to recover foam judgmeirah<\/p>\n
 ciebtor, a sum of \u00a3175,00{)[— as danxages. Thexefcxe,<\/p>\n
.4 contention of judggraent-debtor that judgment made by High<\/p>\n
.’ \u00a3}\u20ac\u00a7\u00a7Ei\u00a7ZiV\u20ac.\n<\/p>\n
Conn; of Justice, Chancery Division, London wei\u00e9s  ~<\/p>\n
on merits of the case cannot be acgcptcd. The’   ” ” \u00bb _ <\/p>\n
judmentdcbtor that impugmzd 1:3  <\/p>\n
ptrinciplcs of natural justice caiungt   ‘A  <\/p>\n
In a decision mprjrgcd   SC  fin  case Qf<\/p>\n
R. Wswmmthan and ot}i\u00e9r$’   Syed Ab\u00a2aI
\nWq\ufb01d since   and other connected
\nmatters},    =
\n ~~~~  . %”F}$\u00a2.;’1:*;}r.a\u00ab’  jueigmcnt is
\n ‘ia.:–\u00abV:;fai1;ra11T’;iz1s\u00a3i<\u00e9c has to be considered
\nin-tghc: ligi1tV_dfjVthe"~:sj::E;tr;ite law of In\u00e9ia and there
\nis \ufb01othi:1VgV  V313 which warrants the
\n,.in't.*:r;91tiia?jQ1:g that a plea that a fomig
\n_  is contrary to natural justice is
\n TA  oniy if the  setting up the pica is
\n n<3t il__11iEj\u00a7r served, or has not been given an<\/p>\n
 ogportunity of being heard."\n<\/p>\n
AA  I-T’V\u00a2\u00a7r these masons, i answtrr points 6 8:. ‘? in the<\/p>\n
Regarding Point No.8:\n<\/p>\n
42. The icamcd senior Counsel    ”\n<\/p>\n
jucigmcnbdcbtor has submitted   u  ‘ . <\/p>\n
not considcmd thc pleas raised  <\/p>\n
and additional objecction statgmgnt \ufb01isxi byT%’.\u00a7ije#1;;3udgiaaei1t–%:%’<\/p>\n
debtor.\n<\/p>\n
43. The learned    appearing for<\/p>\n
_iudgmcnt—cicbjtor’ 0:1  bf Supreme Cfourt,<\/p>\n
     case qf the Divisionai
\nPer:sofiz*;eI” :’~ Railway and Another Vs.
\n‘ITR.CheiIci;3\u00a7\u00a31.*3  would submit. them is no<\/p>\n
co\ufb02\ufb01\u00e9igi\ufb01zmtion  the aspects, the pros anti cons of the<\/p>\n
\u00bbA    below. Therefnrc, the iaamed senior<\/p>\n
  that manic: requires remand to the Court<\/p>\n
beiisw far rci\ufb01msidcration.\n<\/p>\n
 ‘  ” 44. In order to appreciate the above contcn\ufb01on, I have<\/p>\n
   g1;onc thmugh the impuwrtd order, Thc learned Judge of the<\/p>\n
(Scum: below had not raised points for determination with<\/p>\n
43<\/span><\/p>\n
reference to each and even; objection raised by _ie_dg:eeut–<\/p>\n
debtor. The learned Judge of the Court below  _<\/p>\n
objection \ufb01led by judgment-debtor with Iefe:=e;z<\u00a7\u00a7i~ –\u00ab .. <\/p>\n
13(a) to i3(i} C.P.C:. The learned  <\/p>\n
has also deait with contenti\u20acm,__.   ,<\/p>\n
that India Builders CorpoIat.ie%n_"Mv7aS   to the
\nproceedings before   Division,
\nLondon. The ieamed Jugige hae  initiated by<\/p>\n
judgment~cie'n_\u00a3ei';':;:e'aun%er (:33  decree—holder and<\/p>\n
independent c1ai::n_  by' .< i eu::;ee–1:o1der.<\/p>\n
45. The  dueigew’ (butt below Ieferm1′ g to
\n Justice, Chancery Division,<\/p>\n
Loniien }ias..he1g;l’t]:sef”_i1:dgIs1ent-deiator had been noti\ufb01ed of<\/p>\n
    debtor had imowledge of the<\/p>\n
 %\u00a2’:cii3:1gs”..”\u00a7’ 1ea:m   ed Judge of the Court below has dealt<\/p>\n
“*\u00bb%V.”.ag_44e;&e\ufb01\u00e9.\n<\/p>\n
 {he-ezonvientiens, with reference 1:0 sections 1-<\/a>:3{a} to i\ufb01<\/p>\n
E, Cf;-‘LL {I='”””‘ C{“E'”\n<\/p>\n
\n
As already statc\u00e9, the judgmenbcicbtor <\/p>\n
tenable, and untenable objections to avoid    b <\/p>\n
under execution. Therefore, the suhmis_$ii:>;1″Qf”i\u00a3ar;1\u20acd’\u00a7\u00e9i\ufb01\u00a7Q1f’<\/p>\n
Cotmsci for_iucigme:13.t-eziebtor \u00bbti1_at cx\u00e9cit\ufb01ng C:oi3r9L.’E1:\u00a31s  <\/p>\n
to consider all the aspects, and’  of
\nstatement filed by _iudg\u00a7x1:nt–(i\u00e9’:i:$t\u00e9f’ not be ‘5-gccepted. For
\nthese reasons, I answcr  j_13;{ig111cnt–ciebtor.<\/p>\n
46. In \\;ic5\u00a7irj:;j\ufb01$f’m\u00a73*-.\ufb0113;iili:1g\u00e9.”‘\u00a3<:5 a\ufb01cintg 1 to 3, 1 hold that
\nthe im\ufb01ug\ufb01\u00e9g\ufb01ir\u00bb   'I1;d't""<~:~z=*.1i\u00a7 for interfcxtncc. In the
\nmsuit,  _  't\ufb01\u00e9'  "  H<\/p>\n
V tgf. GREEK<\/p>\n
  T\ufb01c: mvisic-'Q. ipggition is dismissed with casts.<\/p>\n
Sd\/ –\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court India Builders Corporation vs Masood Asif on 12 August, 2009 Author: N.Ananda IN ‘THE HitI3:H C”.:(}U\u00a7?T’ OF’ KARNATAKA AT B.\u00a7..:\u00bb%\u00a7\u00a7ALi:\u00a7\u00a72\u00a7”; . DATED THIS THE 1-zzm DAY_C}F__AUC\u00a7UST\u00ab ?2{;)(}i.\u00a7: _ Q ” BEF0R3:}.._ ‘ u ‘_ 4′ THE H{)N’Bi..E MR;:Jp”.\u00a7fTiCE:. ANA1’jI;IT\u00a7.{3v’:… 1. CIVIL F<EVISiON 1$;o. 1'g' BETWEEN: –_ Ind1'aBui}\u00a7.1\u00a3;rs Corporati<\u00a7Vn_T" V 1 "Sheri\ufb01'Centrc"'" 73;'1, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-260595","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIndia Builders Corporation vs Masood Asif on 12 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"India Builders Corporation vs Masood Asif on 12 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-07T05:29:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"India Builders Corporation vs Masood Asif on 12 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-07T05:29:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":5682,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009\",\"name\":\"India Builders Corporation vs Masood Asif on 12 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-07T05:29:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"India Builders Corporation vs Masood Asif on 12 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"India Builders Corporation vs Masood Asif on 12 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"India Builders Corporation vs Masood Asif on 12 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-07T05:29:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"India Builders Corporation vs Masood Asif on 12 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-07T05:29:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009"},"wordCount":5682,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009","name":"India Builders Corporation vs Masood Asif on 12 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-07T05:29:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-builders-corporation-vs-masood-asif-on-12-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"India Builders Corporation vs Masood Asif on 12 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260595","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=260595"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260595\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260595"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260595"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260595"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}