AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 242 wordsLearned Counsel for both side are present.
There was an order for adding Enforcement Directorate as Respondent No. 2, in this Execution Petition, and it is being said by Counsel for Decree Holder, that notice was served, as was directed to be served, by way of a Dasti summon. But nowhere, it is specified, as to, what is the detail of Enforcement Directorate? Where it is situated? Of which Ministry it belongs to ? Who is the person responsible for this institution and to whom it was served?
Hence, let specific detail of all these queries, be got filed, by decree holder, on record. Then after, a notice to that particular person, representing Enforcement Directorate, OP No. 2, added by Order of this Tribunal, be got served, by Dasti notice, besides notice by way of speed post.
Learned Counsel for JD is present. He mentioned that the control of bank accounts, of JD Company, is under Enforcement Directorate and JD intended and tried its best to get the order complied with, and in its exercise for doing so, an amount of about Rs. 1.7 crores odd, has been paid at different dates. Hence, a direction to Enforcement Directorate to release the remaining amount and to be paid to decree holder, is of no objection by this JD.
List the matter 'for hearing' on 30.05.2024 for further disposal.
Notice, as directed above, be got served, in between.