JUDGMENT : G.P.Mittal, J. 1. A Tata Tempo 407 bearing registration No.HR 63-7368 was alleged to have met with an accident on 17th May, 2006. According to the petitioner, this vehicle was financed on 31st May, 2006. It was not aware of any accident with this vehicle as Respondent No. 6 never informed it about the same. There were defaults in payments of instalments. Earlier said vehicle was repossessed by the petitioner in December, 2006 and was sold in auction in March, 2007 for a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/-. 2. On a Claim Petition No. 866/2006 preferred by Respondents No. 1 to 5, an award was passed against Respondent Nos. 6&7. Since the award amount was not paid, execution proceedings were initiated against the Respondent Nos.6&7. It appears that during execution proceedings, attachment orders in respect of offending vehicle were passed. At that time, it was brought to the notice of the Claims Tribunal that the vehicle was re-possessed and sold in auction as stated above. 3. An order dated 16th August, 2011 was passed by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal also required the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate to take proceedings for forfeiture of Superdaginama as also forfeiture of the vehicle with which the petitioner is not concerned. 4. During the proceedings, an order dated 2nd June, 2012 was passed for issuance of bailable warrants against the Managing Director of the Appellant. 5. Orders dated 11th May, 2012 and 2nd June, 2012 passed by the Claims Tribunal are extracted hereunder:- “Ex. No. 27/11 11.05.2012 Present: Counsel for decree holder Counsel for Cholamandalam Investment & finance Co. with AR AR of Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. is directed to produce the person by whose orders the court property had been auctioned in violation of superdaginama submitted to the court of ACMM by owner of the vehicle without verifying the particulars thereby guilty of misappropriating the property of the court and doing amanat mein khayanat. Managing Director is also directed to appear in person to explain the conduct of the official on 28.05.2012.” “Ex. No. 27/11 02.06.2012 Present: Counsel for the decree Holder Managing Director was to appear in person. They have chosen not to appear despite directions communicated through counsel. Issue bailable warrants in sum of Rs.5,000/- against him to be served at the responsibility of counsel for 20/07/2012.” 6. No. 27/11 02.06.2012 Present: Counsel for the decree Holder Managing Director was to appear in person. They have chosen not to appear despite directions communicated through counsel. Issue bailable warrants in sum of Rs.5,000/- against him to be served at the responsibility of counsel for 20/07/2012.” 6. As I have observed above, superdaginama was not executed by the petitioner. In any case, the Claims Tribunal had no concern with superdaginama. Therefore, there was no necessity of the personal appearance of the petitioner’s Managing director or issuance of bailable warrants against him. Order dated 2nd June, 2012 is therefore, set aside. 7. The Claims Tribunal shall be at liberty to pass any order against the petitioner company as may be permissible under law for which the petitioner shall have appropriate remedy. 8. The petition is allowed in above terms. 9. The petition and CM No. 12031/2012 stand disposed of.