The Bombay High Court directed Olive Global Holding Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent/Garnishee) to deposit ₹17,40,82,984/- in court. The judgment emphasizes that acknowledgment of liabilities in financial statements can substantiate debt recovery. It dismissed Garnishee's defense of paper transactions and alleged disputes, finding no substantial objection to the established liability.

1. Introduction of the Case (Para 1):

• The Applicant, Drive India Enterprises Solutions Ltd., sought attachment and deposit of ₹17.41 crores under Order XXI Rules 46 and 46-A of the CPC for execution of a decree dated 10th September 2018.

2. Applicant's Contentions (Paras 2–5):

• The Applicant argued that financial statements and depositions revealed the Respondent owed the Judgment Debtor ₹17.41 crores.
• Relied on precedents (e.g., Asset Reconstruction Company vs. Bishal Jaiswal) that liabilities acknowledged in balance sheets amount to acknowledgment of debt.

3. Respondent's Defense (Paras 6–11):

• The Respondent claimed no actual liability, asserting the amount reflected in financial records were paper entries, linked to a 2012 transaction with HT Media.
• It also highlighted a pending unrelated claim of ₹3.13 crores against the Applicant.

4. Court's Findings (Paras 12–18):

• Financial records of 2020 and 2023 confirmed the debt, which the Respondent failed to dispute credibly.
• The Court rejected the argument of "paper transactions," as the Respondent could not prove the entries were fictitious or forged.
• The alleged HT Media transaction was unrelated and could not offset the debt.

5. Court's Decision (Paras 19–21):

• The Court ordered attachment and deposit of ₹17.41 crores into the court within six weeks and granted the Applicant liberty to withdraw the amount upon application.

Legal Aspects:

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Order XXI Rules 46, 46-A, and 46-C of CPC, 1908:
   • Governs garnishee proceedings, attachment, and execution of decrees.
2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
   • Section 51 (Methods of executing decrees).
   • Rule 41 (Examination of Judgment Debtor).
3. Judgments Cited:
   • Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. vs. Bishal Jaiswal (2021).
   • Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anil Kumar Sen (1974).
   • Walnut Packaging Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. (2009).

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Financial statements serve as a legal acknowledgment of liability, which can be enforced unless proven false or fabricated.
2. A frivolous or unsubstantiated defense by a garnishee is insufficient to avoid compliance with a garnishment order.
3. Related-party transactions cannot invalidate established liabilities unless substantive proof of fraud or falsity is provided.

Subjects:

Execution of Decrees, Garnishee Orders, Commercial Litigation.
Commercial Disputes, Garnishee Proceedings, Judgment Enforcement, Debt Recovery, Corporate Liability.