ORDER 1. The applicants have taken out these Chamber Summonses for raising an attachment over the premises to which they claim title. The applicants claimed to have purchased the attached premises from one VRG Securities Pvt. Ltd. (VRG) under the registered deed of transfer dated 5th May, 2011. The applicants claim that they have no concerned with the award debtor. 2. The applicants have produced the share certificate of the society in which the attached flat is situate. The share certificate shows the transfer in favour of the applicants which is in favour of VRG from one Kanchan Sunil Mansinghani (Kanchan) who was one of the directors of the award debtor company. 3. Hence the award creditor would claim that the attached flat actually belonged to the award debtor and was shown to be in the name of its director. 4. It has been argued on behalf of the award creditor that even in interim proceeding in the arbitration under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 an injunction order came to be passed in respect of the aforesaid flat. The award debtor had then not contended that the flat did not belong to the award debtor. They have relied upon other proceedings when the award debtor accepted the premises that the attached flat would belong to it. 5. However, the share certificate of the society which is produced in the original issued on 21st February, 1976 shows itself to be a very authentic document. It is a document more than 30 years old. It would carry a presumption of its correctness. It is indeed shown to be on a yellow, partly torn paper. It shows the entry in the name of Kanchan on 30th June, 1994. Hence Kanchan purchased the attached premises on or before that date. 6. The ROC records produced before the Court shows that the award debtor company is incorporated on 7th December, 1994. The award debtor company itself was not even incorporated on the date of the purchase of the attached premises. Since Kanchan purchased the attached premises prior to the incorporation of the award debtor company, whatever be the earlier proceedings against the award debtor, it cannot be seen or taken that the attached premises could belong to the award debtor at any time. 7. Since Kanchan purchased the attached premises prior to the incorporation of the award debtor company, whatever be the earlier proceedings against the award debtor, it cannot be seen or taken that the attached premises could belong to the award debtor at any time. 7. The premises distinctly shown to be belonging to one of the directors of the award debtor cannot be attached in execution of the award against the award debtor. 8. Kanchan is shown to have resigned as director. Form 32 has been filed. The award debtor would contend that the resignation itself is feigned and made with a view to defeat creditors because Kanchan owns 99.99% of the share capital of the company and has continued to act as director even after alleged date of her resignation. Even if that is shown, the attached flat cannot be taken to be the property of the award debtor, despite any dubious design of its director. 9. The attached premises initially belonging to Kanchan has been seen to be transferred to VRG who has in turn transfer it to applicants. In view of the aforesaid facts the cases cited by the parties to show the lifting of the corporate veil of a company or the Court taking into account the earlier transfers which may show the title of the company need not be adverted to. 10. The Chamber Summonses are granted. The attachment over the attached premises in Hiren Light Industrial Premises Coop. Soc. Ltd., Mogul Lane, Mahim, Mumbai 400 016 is raised. The award creditor shall be entitled to proceed in execution against any other property of the award debtor.