JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The present order will dispose of all pending applications, i.e. EA Nos. 243/2002, 435/2002, 213/2004, 339/2004, 198/2005, 313/2006, 38/2008, 338/2004, 438/2002, 672/2003, 214/2004, 220/2004, 221/2004, 226/2004, 227/2004, 228/2004, 229/2004 and 109/2006. 2. The facts necessary to dispose of these applications are that the decree holder had invoked an arbitration clause in an agreement entered into with one M/s. Radiant Sports Management (P) Ltd. - (Judgment Debtor No. 1 in the present proceedings). An award was made in its favour on 24.8.1998. In terms of the award, decree holder was entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 11,05,000/- and Rs. 5,07,534/- as damages from 24.11.1996 till date of payment; in addition, the Arbitrator awarded interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amounts payable on due dates till their realization with cost quantified at Rs. 25,000/-. The decree holder preferred the present proceeding, i.e. Execution Petition No. 38/2000 on 14.2.2000. In the body of the execution, the decree holder sought for attachment of immovable property bearing No. S-524, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, claiming that it was owned by the judgment debtor. 3. On the strength of the averments and the contentions, this Court by its order dated 16.5.2000 attached the property bearing No. S-524, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. Thereafter, a number of occupants in the property had moved the Court, claiming to be owners of different portions. 4. During subsistence of the attachment orders in the present proceedings, one Mr. Aushim Khetrapal appeared in the Court and filed an affidavit on 27.9.2002 along with an application, i.e. EA 438/2002. The said application stated that the judgment debtor had come for want to settle the matter with the decree holder. It further contained the following averments: 5. The judgment debtor in full and final settlement has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- in the manner stated hereunder and the decree holder has accepted the same in full and final settlement i) Rs. 1,54,000/- by way of pay order dated 26/9/02. ii) Rs. 1,46,000/- by way of Pay Order dated 26/9/02. iii) Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 30/9/02 bearing No. 515952 drawn on HDFC Bank. iv) Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 3/10/02 bearing No. 515953 drawn on HDFC Bank. v) Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 5/10/02 bearing No. 515954 drawn on HDFC Bank. vi) Rs. ii) Rs. 1,46,000/- by way of Pay Order dated 26/9/02. iii) Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 30/9/02 bearing No. 515952 drawn on HDFC Bank. iv) Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 3/10/02 bearing No. 515953 drawn on HDFC Bank. v) Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 5/10/02 bearing No. 515954 drawn on HDFC Bank. vi) Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 8/10/02 bearing No. 515955 drawn on HDFC Bank. 6. The judgment debtor further agrees to give the pay orders for the four cheques mentioned above before their due date. If the judgment debtor fails to give the pay order then the decree holder will be entitled to present the cheques on due dates. Further if on presentation the cheques issued by him are dishonoured then the entire decretal sum of Rs. 23,88,565/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. from 10.2.2000 till the date of payment shall become due and payable and the judgment debtor shall be bound by the same. 7. The judgment debtor agrees that the above stated settlement is subject to the condition that the payment schedule stated above would be strictly adhered to by the judgment debtor. 8. It is further agreed that if even one installment is delayed or is not paid then the entire decretal sum in terms of the decree would become due and payable immediately on default and the judgment debtor will be liable to make the payment of the entire sum of Rs. 23,88,565/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. from 10.2.2000 till the date of payment to the decree holder. 9. That the judgment debtor further agrees and admits that till the entire payment in terms of the settlement above is paid to the decree holder he shall not sell, alienate, transfer or part with possession of the premises bearing No. S-524, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi and till payment of the last installment upto 10/10/02. 5. Paragraph 3 of the above affidavit stated that the deponent would be bound by terms stated in the application and in case of default, would also be liable to satisfy the decree holder. The said Mr. Aushim Khetrapal also enclosed a copy of a Board Resolution of the judgment debtor dated 23.9.2002. 6. Apparently, the property bearing No. S-524, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, was, at that stage, owned by one Shri D.D. Khaitan. The said Mr. Aushim Khetrapal also enclosed a copy of a Board Resolution of the judgment debtor dated 23.9.2002. 6. Apparently, the property bearing No. S-524, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, was, at that stage, owned by one Shri D.D. Khaitan. He sold it to Shri Aushim Khetrapal and his wife, Mrs. Anita Khetrapal on 4.1.2001. The various sale deeds placed on the record indicate that on 11.11.2002, the said Shri Aushim Khetrapal sold the property to one Shri Rahul Mullick. The latter further sold the property on 19.12.2003 to the applicant in EA 213/2004, Shri Jai Kumar Manghanani. 7. All the above facts were, however, not brought to the notice of the Court. The attachment order continued to subsist. On 10.7.2003, this Court directed sale of property bearing No. S-524, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. Subsequently, a proclamation was made pursuant to an order dated 10.2.2004; as a result, 25.5.2004 was fixed as the date of auction. In the meanwhile, the Objector in EA 213/2004 approached the Division Bench in an appeal being EFA No. 16-17/2004. On 24.5.2004, the Division Bench issued an interim order suspending the order and staying the auction to be held on next date. The decree holder and the auction purchaser (who is before the Court now seeks to withdraw the offer) assert that they were unaware of the order and that the auction proceeded in respect of the second floor of the property. The applicant in EA 213/2004, Shir Jai Kumar Manghanani, therefore, approached this Court and again obtained orders. Eventually, the appeal was disposed of on 4.10.2004 confirming the stay of the auction granted on 24.4.2004, till disposal of the applications filed by Shri Manghanani. 7. The applicant in EA 198/2005, who had apparently successfully bid for the property, sought for release of the property. In the later application, i.e. EA 38/2008, he has approached the Court seeking to withdraw the offer in light of the Division Bench order. .8. This Court has heard contentions of the parties. Counsel for the decree holder contended that the title to the property was with Shri Aushim Khetrapal at the .relevant time and that the attachment order was made validly when the execution petition was filed. He, therefore, submitted that the Court was justified in directing the auction. .8. This Court has heard contentions of the parties. Counsel for the decree holder contended that the title to the property was with Shri Aushim Khetrapal at the .relevant time and that the attachment order was made validly when the execution petition was filed. He, therefore, submitted that the Court was justified in directing the auction. He also submitted that the liability of the Company was taken over by Shri Aushim Khetrapal, who agreed to pay all the outstandings even in his personal capacity as stipulated in the undertaking which was filed in Court. He undertook through his affidavit to personally discharge the liabilities of the Company/judgment debtor by or in relation to the said property. Therefore, the Court acted in accordance with law in attaching the properties and seeking to sell them. 9. Counsel for the Objector - Shri Manghanani, on the other hand, contended that the order of attachment cannot be sustained since the property did not belong to the Company. It was also submitted that in the absence of determination of the liability of Shri Aushim Khetrapal or even acceptance of the affidavit furnished by him, the attachment order was not valid. The title to the property was with the different people. The occupiers of the floor from Shri Jai Kumar Manghanani, too had filed objections which found favour with the Court; and were later allowed during the pendency of the present proceedings. 10. Mr. R.C. Chopra, appearing on behalf of Shri Rajinder Singh Verma, purchaser in the auction sale, submitted that although initially the auction purchaser was interested in the property, he has now no interest to pursue with the proceedings and wishes to withdraw the amount deposited in the Court in view of the dispute regarding title. It was that contended, according to the auction purchaser, the judgment debtor does not have any title to the property or salable interest which can be conveyed and, therefore, the auction purchaser wishes to withdraw the offer. 11. It was that contended, according to the auction purchaser, the judgment debtor does not have any title to the property or salable interest which can be conveyed and, therefore, the auction purchaser wishes to withdraw the offer. 11. It is evident from the above narrative that the decree in question saddled liabilities on the judgment debtor, i.e. M/s. Radiant Sports Management (P) Ltd. Although execution proceedings were initiated in 2000 and an attachment order was made on 16.5.2000, it has never been disputed in these proceedings that the said judgment debtor did not own the property No. S-524, Greater Kailash-I. The entire basis for the order of sale, the subsequent proclamation and indeed the auction held on 25.5.2004 was the undertaking in the form of an application filed by Shri Aushim Khetrapal on 27.9.2002. There is indeed no order of this Court accepting the prayer in that application, i.e. EA 438/2002. The notice on the said application was issued and the order sheets of 30.9.2002, 10.10.2002 and 8.11.2002 indicate that time was sought to file a reply. Thereafter, the order sheets nowhere reflect consideration of the said application. The Court appears to have been persuaded to accept the contentions based on the undertaking and proceeded on an assumption that the property belonged to the judgment debtor and that the undertaking of the affidavit of said Shri Aushim Khetrapal had been accepted. .12. It is settled law that a Company has a separate juristic or artificial existence apart from its Directors and members. The execution application has not disclosed how the property bearing No. S-524, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, was connected with the judgment debtor or that any part of it was owned by it. The mere circumstance that a Director of the judgment debtor owned a portion of the property at some stage could not have, in the circumstances, clothed this Court with the authority to issue an attachment order and later to sell that property. There could be a case that where the Court even in an execution proceeding "lifts the veil" of a closely held Company, particularly, a private limited company and in order to satisfy a decree, proceeds against the personal assets of its directors and share holders. There could be a case that where the Court even in an execution proceeding "lifts the veil" of a closely held Company, particularly, a private limited company and in order to satisfy a decree, proceeds against the personal assets of its directors and share holders. But before such a course of action is adopted, the Court has to be satisfied about the need to follow such a course and return appropriate findings in that regard. All these are absent in the present proceeding. Therefore, I have no hesitation in concluding that the attachment and the subsequent orders directing auction of the property had no legal basis. 13. In the light of the above findings, this Court is of the opinion that EA No. 213/2004 and 339/2004 have to succeed. The auction purchaser too has now come forward and sought the liberty of the Court to withdraw the offer. In the circumstances of the case, the order to put the property to auction cannot be sustained. Therefore, EA 38/2008 has to be allowed. 14. In the light of the above discussion, the order dated 16.5.2000 attaching the property is hereby vacated. EA 313/2006, 339/2004, 198/2005, 38/2008 and 338/2004 are accordingly allowed. It is open to the auction purchaser Shri Rajinder Singh Verma to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court along with the interest paid on it. All subsequent orders for sale, issuance of proclamation, etc. are hereby set aside. 15. In the circumstances the cost of the proceedings shall be borne by the decree holder. The decree holder shall also pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as costs to the applicant in EA No. 213/2004 and 339/2004, i.e. Shri Jai Kumar Manghanani within four weeks. All the pending applications, i.e. EA Nos. 243/2002, 435/2002, 213/2004, 339/2004, 198/2005, 313/2006, 38/2008, 338/2004, 438/2002, 672/2003, 214/2004, 220/2004, 221/2004, 226/2004, 227/2004, 228/2004, 229/2004 and 109/2006 are disposed of in the above terms. Order dasti. EX.P. 38/2000 List on 22nd July, 2008.