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 2026:BHC-AS:36205 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.] Page No. 3 of 3 1 SEPTEMBER 2026 Signed by: Renuka S Thakur Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/09/2026 16:17:27