The Supreme Courtroom has noticed {that a} plea filed by a judgment-debtor’s authorized consultant looking for an exemption from an attachment of the judgment-debtor’s predominant residential home wouldn’t be maintainable beneath Part 60(1)(ccc) of the Code of Civil Process, 1908 [which is applicable in Punjab and Delhi].
A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that solely the judgment-debtor is entitled to assert an exemption from attachment of a predominant residence beneath Part 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC, and the identical can’t be prolonged to his authorized consultant post-death of the judgment-debtor.
“…the plea of exemption beneath Part 60(1)(ccc) of the Code is private to the judgment-debtor and isn’t obtainable to be raised by his authorized representatives.”, the Courtroom mentioned.
The case arose from restoration proceedings initiated by Punjab & Sind Financial institution in opposition to M/s Sterling Malt & Meals Pvt. Ltd. and its guarantors. Following defaults beneath a compromise decree, the financial institution initiated execution proceedings that in the end resulted within the public sale of a residential property located in New Delhi.
The widow of the deceased judgment debtor challenged the public sale, contending that the property was exempt from attachment beneath Part 60(1)(ccc) CPC, which protects a judgment debtor’s principal residential home from sale in execution.
The Excessive Courtroom had entertained the Respondent No.1 writ petition looking for an exemption beneath Part 60(1)(ccc) of the Code and remanded the matter for contemporary consideration to the DRT.
Aggrieved by which, the appeals had been filed earlier than the Supreme Courtroom.
The difficulty earlier than the Courtroom was whether or not the profit beneath Part 60(1)(ccc), as relevant in Delhi, might be claimed by authorized heirs after the demise of the judgment debtor.
Setting apart the Excessive Courtroom’s order, the judgment authored by Justice Aradhe noticed that the language of the availability makes the exemption private to the judgment debtor himself. For the reason that provision refers to a home belonging to and occupied by the judgment debtor, the safety can’t robotically lengthen to authorized representatives who inherit the property after his demise.
The Courtroom endorsed the Delhi Excessive Courtroom and Punjab & Haryana Excessive Courtroom judgments handed in Yogesh Sharma & Ors. v. Devi Dayal & Ors., AIR 1977 Delhi 270, and Ok.L. Bawa v. Basant Textiles, AIR 1982 P&H 275, the place it was held that authorized representatives and judgment debtors are distinct authorized entities and can’t be equated for the aim of claiming statutory exemptions.
“The Delhi Excessive Courtroom decoding Part 60(1)(ccc) of the Code has held {that a} authorized consultant is a definite juridical idea from judgment debtor and legal responsibility devolving upon authorized consultant is proscribed to the property in his arms and he can’t, merely by advantage of residing in a home which belonged to the deceased judgment debtor, declare private exemption that Part 60(1)(ccc) of the Code affords to a judgment-debtor alone. The identical view has recommended itself to the Punjab & Haryana Excessive Courtroom in two choices. Thus, the plea of exemption beneath Part 60(1)(ccc) of the Code is private to the judgment-debtor and isn’t obtainable to be raised by his authorized representatives.”, the Courtroom noticed.
Failure to serve discover didn’t make the public sale void
One other necessary query was whether or not the absence of discover beneath Order XXI Rule 22 CPC invalidated the execution proceedings and subsequent public sale.
The Supreme Courtroom distinguished between execution earlier than an odd civil court docket and restoration proceedings earlier than the Money owed Restoration Tribunal (DRT). As soon as the execution continuing was transferred to the DRT beneath Part 31 of the Restoration of Money owed and Chapter Act, 1993, the Restoration Officer was required to observe the particular restoration mechanism beneath Part 29 of the 1993 Act learn with the Second Schedule to the Earnings-tax Act, 1961.
The Courtroom subsequently held that Order XXI Rule 22 CPC had no impression on the validity of the public sale sale carried out by the Restoration Officer.
When it comes to the aforesaid, the Courtroom upheld the public sale, thereby permitting the enchantment.
Trigger Title: SHEELA GEHLOT Versus MOHINI HARDAYAL SINGH & ORS. (With linked issues)
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 808
Click here to download judgment
Look:
For Appellant(s) : Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. Ok. Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR Mr. Arun Ok. Sinha, AOR Mr. Akshay Chitkara, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv. Ms. Sanjoli Gupta, Adv. Mr. Darpan Jain, Adv. Mr. Rongon Choudury, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Rohan Kochhar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Agrawal, AOR Ms. Gouri Goburdhun, Adv. Ms. Komal Mundhra, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Rana, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shekhar Naphde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Sr. Adv. Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Mr. Rahul Srivastav, Adv. Mr. Shubham Seth, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sunidhi Singh, Adv. Ms. Bhairavi, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR Ms. Shridevi, Adv. Ms. Poonam, Adv. Mr. Lovekesh, Adv. M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Mr. Arjun Harkauli, AOR Ms. Tina Garg, AOR Mr. Pk Agrawal, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr. Akshay Chitkara, Adv. M/s Sanjoli Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sanjoli Gupta, Adv. Mr. Darpan Jain, Adv. Mrs. Santhanalakshmi, Adv. Mr. Rishab Tomar, Adv. Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohan Kochhar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Agrawal, AOR Ms. Gouri Goburdhun, Adv. Ms. Komal Mundhra, Adv. Ms. Laxita Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Sonam Anand, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Joseph, Adv. Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Mr. Vedant Singh, AOR Ms. Aarthi Rajan, AOR Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Adv. Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, Adv. Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Aman Rawat, Adv. Mr. Naveen Nagarjuna, AOR
