Ramesh Kedarmal Modi vs Ahuja Properties And Developers ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10304 Bom

                Digitally signed by SMITA
SMITA JOHNSON   JOHNSON GONSALVES
GONSALVES       Date: 2021.08.06 12:59:54
                +0530


                  sg                                                             9. ial3721-21.doc

                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                        INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.3721 OF 2021
                                                          IN
                                      COMMERCIAL SUMMARY SUIT (L) NO.3714 OF 2021
                                                        WITH
                                        SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.40 OF 2021
                                                          IN
                                      COMMERCIAL SUMMARY SUIT (L) NO.3714 OF 2021

                  Ramesh Kedarmal Modi                      ...Applicant/Plaintiff
                        vs.
                  Ahuja Properties And Developers And 4 Ors ...Respondents/Defendants
                                                   WITH
                               INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.15574 OF 2021
                                                     IN
                                SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.40 OF 2021

                  Ahuja Properties And Developers And 4 Ors. ...Applicants
                        vs.
                  Ramesh Kedarmal Modi                       ...Defendant
                                                      .....
                  Mr. Kunal R. Khambat, for the Applicant.

                  Mr. Mikhail Behl, a/w. Ms. Saira Mirzankar, i/b. Madhukar Mulay, for the
                  Defendants.
                                                     ....
                                          CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

DATED : 4 AUGUST 2021 P.C. :

The learned counsel for the defendants submits that this Court allowed the plaintiff's application for attachment before judgment, conditionally, requiring the defendants to provide security. According to him, that condition was to be fulfilled in 48 hours. Lest, the regular attachment should follow.

Pg 1 of 2 sg 9. ial3721-21.doc

2. In the above context, the learned counsel for the defendants submits that 48 hours is too short a time for the defendants either to comply with the condition or to explore redressal avenues.

3. Of course, the learned counsel for the plaintiff opposes any extension of time granted to the defendants for compliance.

I reckon 48 hours may be short for the defendants either to comply with the condition or to explore their remedial steps against the order. Finally, I extend the time from today by ten days. No further time shall be granted. The defendants either should comply with the condition or have their redressal. Post the matter on 17 August 2021.

(DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. )

Pg 2 of 2