Amulakh H. Vora vs Venus Trading Corporation And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 9368 Bom

                                                                           (18) IA-920-20.doc

BDP-SPS-tac



  BHARAT
  DASHARATH
  PANDIT                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  Digitally signed by
  BHARAT
  DASHARATH
  PANDIT




                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
  Date: 2021.07.22
  18:55:50 +0530




                                      INTERIM APPLICATION NO.920 OF 2020
                                                       IN
                                      FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.1448 OF 2020


                        Amulakh H. Vora                                 ....Applicant.

                        In the matter between

                        Amulakh H. Vora                             .... Appellant.
                              V/s
                        Venus Trading Corporation
                        and Others                                  ..... Respondents.
                        ----
                        Mr. Pradeep J. Ramchandani for the Applicant by the Interim
                        Application.
                        Mr. Jayesh Bhatt for Respondent No.1.
                        ----

                                          CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                          DATE:    JULY 16, 2021
                        P.C.:-

                        1]       This Interim Application is filed by the Defendant No.2/

Applicant seeking stay to the execution and implementation

of the judgment and decree dated 10/10/2019 passed in S.C.

Suit No.3148 of 2011.

(18) IA-920-20.doc

2] Contentions are, delivery was accepted by the Plaintiffs

without any protest. According to him, specific findings are

recorded by the court below that Plaintiff No.1 is responsible

for default, if any, and so as to substantiate the same he

would invite attention of this court to the findings recorded

by the court below in para 19 of the impugned judgment so

as to claim that it shall be the responsibility of Plaintiff No.1

to pay the said amount.

3] Mr. Bhatt, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant

would oppose the aforesaid submission based on evidence

and so also findings recorded in the judgment impugned.

4] Having considered the said submissions, it is apparent

that decree passed against the Applicant is a money decree.

Specific findings are recorded by the Court below that order

(18) IA-920-20.doc

was received by Applicant/Defendant No.2 for supply of pipes

of particular specifications, which he was duty bound to

manufacture and supply under the contract. Appellant has

failed to honour his part of obligation. Said fact has duly

weighed before the court below while passing the order

impugned.

5] In response to the court's query, learned Counsel for the

Applicant/judgment debtor would urge that Applicant shall

deposit principal amount and in view of the finding recorded

particularly in para 19, he be granted relief of stay to the

extent of depositing interest and other expenses.

6] In that view of the matter, subject to deposit of

principal amount within a period of four weeks from today,

there shall be stay to the execution. Once the amount is

deposited, same be made over in Fixed Deposit in

(18) IA-920-20.doc

Nationalized Bank initially for a period of three years.

7] Application stands allowed in the above terms.

8] In case, amount as ordered is not deposited within the

time stipulated, needless to clarify that stay shall cease to

operate without further reference to the Court and the

Plaintiff/decree holder will be entitled to execute decree

against the Defendant/Judgment debtor.

9] If the amount as ordered is deposited it shall be open for

the Applicant/Appellant to pray for releasing of the property

from attachment.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )