Bombay High Court
GOKAK TEXTILE LIMITEDversusPLANTINUM TEXPRO AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rejected
Holding
The earlier set‑aside orders are final and the decree against JD 2, 3 and 4 is unexecutable; therefore the writ petition must be dismissed.
Summary
Gokak Textile Ltd sued Platinum Texpro and Haritwal Cotton Mills for money, naming several directors and owners as defendants. The suit was decreed ex parte, but the executing court later set aside the decree against the partnership firm (Defendant 1) and a director (Defendant 5) as a nullity. The petitioner challenged a later order that allowed applications to set aside the decree against Judgment Debtors 2, 3 and 4, while suppressing the earlier set‑aside orders. The court observed that the applications of JD 3 and JD 4 were identical to the already‑settled JD 5 application, rendering further interference unnecessary. Regarding JD 2, the court affirmed that the decree was unexecutable due to lack of apportionment of liability and the untenable notion of “ownership” in a private limited company. Consequently, the writ petition was found to be without merit and dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order allowing applications at Exhibits‑80 and 89 to set aside the decree against Judgment Debtors 2, 3 and 4 should be interfered with.
- Whether the decree against JD 2, 3 and 4 is executable in view of non‑apportionment of liability and the concept of ownership in a private limited company.
- Whether the petitioner’s suppression of earlier orders (7 July 2014 and 4 August 2014) affects the validity of the present petition.
Subjects
- execution of decree
- set aside decree
- nullity
- non‑apportionment of liability
- ownership concept
- partnership vs company
- suppression of orders
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:36205
Renuka 20-WP-8912-2017.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8912 OF 2017
Gokak Textile Limited ...Petitioner
V/s.
Plantinum Texpro And Ors ...Respondent
________________
Mr. Hemant Ghadigaonkar with Ms. Pallabi Chatterjee for Petitioner.
Mr. Gulnar Mistry i/b Jay and Co., for Respondent No. 3.
Mr. Arnav Urankar i/b Jay and co., for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 1 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) The Petition challenges order dated 5 December 2016 passed
by the Executing Court allowing Application at Exhibits-80 and 89 and
directing that the decree passed against Judgment Debtor No. 2, 3 and 4
stands set aside being nullity and nonest.
2) I have heard Mr. Ghadigaonkar, the learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner, Ms. Mistry, the learned counsel appearing
for Respondent No. 3 and Mr. Urankar the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and have considered the submissions canvassed
by them. I have gone through the findings recorded by the Executing
Court in the impugned order and have perused the records of the case
filed alongwith the Petition.
Page No.1 of 3
1 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka 20-WP-8912-2017.docx
3) Plaintiff filed Suit No. 121 of 2008 for recovery of money
against Platinum Texpro (Defendant No. 1) and Haritwal Cotton Mills
Pvt. Ltd (Defendant No. 2) in which it desccribed. Defendant Nos. 3 to 5
as directors of Defendant No. 1 and owners of Defendant No. 2. It turned
out that Defendant No. 1-Platinum Texpro was a partnership firm with
which Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 have no concern. The suit was decreed ex-
parte. When the decree was put in execution, Defendant No. 1/ JD No. 1
filed Application at Exh-68 for setting aside the decree qua it. By order
dated 4 August 2014, the qua for Defendant No. 1-firm is set aside being
a nullity. Defendant No. 5/JD No. 5 also filed Application at Exh-69
seeking similar relief and by order dated 7 July 2014, the Court declared
that the decree obtained against Defendant No. 5 was also not executable
in eyes of law. The decree was accordingly set aside qua Defendant No. 5.
4) Petitioner has suppressed orders dated 7 July 2014 and 4
August 2014 passed qua JD No. 1 and JD No. 5. The impugned order
contains direct reference to orders passed at Exh-68 and 69. Despite that,
the Petitioner has not disclosed those orders in the Petition without any
valid reason.
5) Even if the aspect of the suppression is to be momentarily
ignored, it is seen that the Application filed by JD Nos. 3 and 4 was
exactly identical to the Application at Exh-69 filed by JD No. 5. JD No. 3
to 5 were described as directors of JD No. 1 and owners of JD No. 2. In my
view, for the reasons recorded while allowing Application at Exh-69, even
the Application at Exh-80 was required to be allowed. It appears that the
order passed at Exh-69 has already attained finality. I therefore find no
Page No.2 of 3
1 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka 20-WP-8912-2017.docx
reason to interfere in the impugned order onthe Application at Exh-80
qua JD Nos. 3 and 4.
6) So far as Application filed by JD No. 2 at Exh-89 is
concerned, though I am not in full agreement with finding recorded by
the Court in the second part of paragraph 7, it appears that while
allowing the Application at Exh-68 qua JD No. 1, the Court has made
following observations:-
7. The JD for the first time came to know about the execution
proceeding on 07/12/2011 when he filed his appearance and objected
the execution. The DH has implicated the persons in the suit who are
not the partners of JD No.1 and thereby obtained decree by playing
fraud upon the court. It is equally evident that the liability for
payment of decreetal amount is not apportioned amongst the JD, as
JD No.1 and 2 are distinct legal entities and therefore on that count
also, the decree became unexecutable.
7) Thus while passing order dated 4 August 2014, the
Executing Court has made an observation that the decree was not
executable on account of non apportionment of amount against JD 1 and
JD 2. Even otherwise, the liability was sought to be fastened against JD
No. 2 by describing JD Nos. 3 to 5 as ‘owners’ of JD No. 2. There is no
concept of ownership qua a private limited company. In my view,
therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order even in
respect of Application at Exh-89.
8) Writ Petition is thus devoid of merits. It is accordingly
rejected.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
Page No.3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 1 SEPTEMBER 2026
Date: 03/09/2026 16:17:27
Checking your session…