The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea by former Ranbaxy promoter Malvinder Singh seeking exemption of the quarterly ‘pension’ received by him (for being a former employee of Ranbaxy) from the ambit of an attachment order passed by the Court.
The arrangement with respect to the pension was made by Ranbaxy. Even after Ranbaxy merged with Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, the same arrangement continued.
The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher.
The application was part of the execution proceedings in Malvinder’s Rs 3500 crore arbitration row with Japanese Drug-maker Daiichi Sankyo.
On August 10, 2018, the Court had directed Malvinder and other judgment debtors in case not to operate their bank accounts.
Daiichi Sankyo, on the other hand, argued that the application was “yet another device employed by him to keep his assets outside the reach of this Court and as a result impede the satisfaction of the subject decree.”
It emphasized the fact that the claim that his family members, especially brother Shivinder Singh, were dependant on him was false.
Daiichi further stated that the amount received by Malvinder did not fall within the ambit of Section 60(1)(g) of the Code.
The Court agreed with Malvinder that it would be “completely inequitable” to restrict the protection from attachment granted under Section 60(1)(g) of the Code only to employees of the State and its instrumentalities.
Section 60(1)(g) of the Code does not protect a debt of this nature owed to a judgment debtor from attachment and sale in execution proceedings, the Court said.
In any case, monies which already stand credited, on this score, in the concerned bank account(s) of Malvinder Singh are not free from attachment, the Court clarified.
It thus rejected the application moved by Malvinder Singh
Courtesy/By: Sakshi Shukla
|
01 Apr 2019
