Bombay High Court
State Bank Of India A Nationalized ... vs Fahmida Ansari Mohd. Sirajudiin ... on 20 July, 2021
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5297 OF 2021
IN SAST/15375/20219
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5298 OF 2021
IN SAST/15375/2019
STATE BANK OF INDIA
VERSUS
FAHMIDA ANSARI W/O MOHD. SIRAJUDDIN ANSARI AND OTHERS
...
Mr. A.D. Gade, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. P.N. Sonpethkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
RESERVED ON : 15th JULY, 2021.
PRONOUNCED ON : 20th JULY, 2021.
ORDER :
1 Civil Application No.5297 of 2021 has been filed by the
applicant-appellant for praying issuance of appropriate directions to the
office of this Court to accept fresh Demand Draft towards decreetal amount
as per order dated 18.02.2020, passed in Civil Application No.7208 of 2019
by this Court and Civil Application No.5298 of 2021 has been filed for stay.
2 Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.D. Gade for the applicant and
2 CA_5297_2021
learned Advocate Mr. P.N. Sonpethkar for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3 Before considering the submissions, a fact is required to be
placed on record that the applicant-Bank has filed the Second Appeal
challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 23.10.2018, passed by learned
District Judge-2, Aurangabad, in Regular Civil Appeal No.26/2016, thereby
allowing the appeal with proportionate costs but directing the appellant-Bank
to pay the amount of Rs.6,26,250 to the plaintiffs with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of deposit i.e. 19.07.2008. Present applicant-Bank had
filed Civil Application No.7207 of 2019 before this Court for condonation of
delay in filing the appeal. That came to be allowed, subject to deposit of
costs of Rs.15,000/- to the respondents. Separate application was also filed
i.e. Civil Application No.7208 of 2019 for stay to the impugned Decree, which
also came to be allowed, however, conditional. It was directed that the
decree would be stayed only on the condition that the applicant-appellant
would deposit the entire decreetal amount, in this Court, within a period of
four weeks. It was also stated that if the deposit is not made within the said
period, then that order would be recalled.
4 It is further a fact, which is apparent from the documents with
this application, that on 17.03.2020 the learned Advocate appearing for the
applicant-appellant by two separate letters gave two different Demand
3 CA_5297_2021
Drafts; one was for Rs.15,000/- i.e. towards cost amount and another was for
Rs.6,26,250/-, which is the principal amount, as per the Decree passed by the
First Appellate Court. Both the Demand Drafts appear to be returned to the
Advocate for the applicant-appellant by the office of this Court stating that
the Court had passed the order on 18.02.2020 and the Demand Drafts are
presented on 17.03.2020, which is beyond the time, that was directed by this
Court, as per the said order.
5 Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that after the return
of said Demand Drafts, the Bank has changed the Advocate and in fact, there
was no intentional delay on the part of the Bank to deposit the amount when
that order was communicated belatedly by the concerned Advocate and due
to COVID situation it was not possible to exchange the Demand Drafts. A
statement has been made by the learned Advocate that the applicant-Bank is
ready to deposit the entire decreetal amount, and therefore, the time be
extended.
6 Learned Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has filed affidavit-
in-reply and taken objection that the application is not maintainable and the
extension cannot be granted. However, later on he submitted that if the Bank
is depositing the entire decreetal amount, that means, the principal amount
together with interest @ 9% per annum from 19.07.2008, then that amount
4 CA_5297_2021
be allowed to be deposited, since the respondents are also interested in
getting their money.
7 At the outset, it is to be noted that there was an attempt by the
Bank to deposit the amount, however, it appears that due to the
communication gap between the Bank and the earlier Advocate, the Demand
Drafts were submitted beyond the period of four weeks, that was granted by
this Court. The respondents are also interested in getting the money, and
therefore, when the Demand Drafts, which were tendered but later on
returned by this Court, were only on the ground that it was beyond the
period of limitation, granted by this Court. The time can be extended, as it is
part of the conditional order on the stay application. While granting stay, this
Court has considered the submissions made, as to whether there is any kind
of merit or not in the case and then the said conditional order has been
passed. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the applicant
to deposit the decreetal amount again, on certain conditions. Hence,
following order.
ORDER
1 The time limit to deposit the costs amount as well as the
decreetal amount as per the order passed by this Court on 18.02.2020 is
5 CA_5297_2021
hereby extended till 02.08.2021.
2 On that day the applicant should submit two Demand Drafts;
one is for the costs of Rs.15,000/- and another should be in respect of entire
decreetal amount, that is, the principal amount of Rs.6,26,250/-, together
with interest @ 9% per annum from 19.07.2008 till 02.08.2021.
3 Calculation Sheet should also be submitted along with the
Demand Drafts and the copy of the calculation Sheet should also be given to
the respondents, on that day.
4 In view of extension of time, the stay granted by this Court on
18.02.2020 is hereby extended till 02.08.2021.
5 In case of failure on the part of the applicant-appellant to deposit
the amount, as aforesaid, the conditional stay would stand automatically
vacated, without further reference to the Court.
6 In view of this order, both the Civil Applications stand disposed
of.
( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J. )
agd
