Bombay High Court
Ratan Kishinchand Pritmani And 4 ... vs Chandumal And Sons Sole Prop. ... on 8 June, 2021
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, C.V. Bhadang
1 8. COMAP(St.) 3525.21.doc
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL APPEAL (LODG.) NO. 3525 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (LODG.) NO. 3531 OF 2021
Ratan Kishinchand Pritmani and Ors. ... Appellants
Original Plaintiff
V/s.
M/s. Chandumal and Sons ... Respondents
Original Defendants
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. B.K. Barve, Sandeep Barve and Laxmi
Ingale i/b. B.K. Barve & Co. for the Appellants
Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin a/w. Ms. Jennifer Michael I/b. Alisha
Pinto for the Respondents
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
C.V. BHADANG, JJ.
DATE : 8 JUNE 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)
P.C. :-
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The Appellant - Original Plaintiff has filed this
Commercial Appeal challenging the order passed by the learned
Single Judge dated 18 January 2021.
3. The Appellant has filed a Commercial Suit bearing No.
2 8. COMAP(St.) 3525.21.doc
33 of 2020 praying for a direction to the Respondents - Defendants
to pay an aggregate sum of Rs.2,90,14,060/- along with interest and
certain alternate prayers. An Interim Application bearing No. 535
of 2020 is taken out by the Appellants in the suit with various
prayers such as an injunction restraining the Respondents -
Defendants from creating any third party rights in respect of the
properties; an appointment of the Court Receiver; and an order of
attachment of the property before judgment.
4. The application came up before the learned Single Judge
on 18 June 2021, and the following order was passed:-
" 1. By this interim application, the plaintiffs seek an
order of attachment of suit property before
judgment. In the suit, the plaintiffs seek to recover
Rs.2,90,14,060/-as more particularly as set out in
the plaint.
2. Having considered the averments in the plaint
and IA, no case is made out under Order XXXVIII.
Ad-interim relief is therefore refused.
3. IA to come up in the regular course."
This order is impugned in the appeal before us.
5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that
the Appellant is entitled to get an order of injunction to restrain the
Respondents - Defendants from creating third party rights and also
for an appointment of Court Receiver, and presses for these two
reliefs in the Appeal. The learned Counsel for the Respondents -
Defendants contest the same.
3 8. COMAP(St.) 3525.21.doc
6. The learned Single Judge had not rejected the prayers for
injunction and/or appointment of a Court Receiver. The degree of
scrutiny and the evaluation of parameters by the court would be
different in the case of each of these reliefs prayed for. Though there
is a disagreement between the Counsel as to what transpired before
the learned Single Judge as to which relief was asked for, we will
proceed based on the Court record. The plain reading of the
impugned order shows that the learned Single Judge has only dealt
with the prayer for attachment of the suit property. Therefore, the
other reliefs of injunction and the appointment of the Court
Receiver have not been decided, and the interim application is yet
pending.
7. In view of the above, it is unnecessary to proceed further
with this Appeal as the prayers sought before us are not yet decided
by the learned Single Judge. It is always open to the Appellant to
approach the learned Single Judge regarding these reliefs in the
pending application, which the learned Single Judge will
undoubtedly consider on their own merits.
8. With these observations and clarification, the Appeal
and Interim Application are disposed of.
C.V. BHADANG, J. NITIN JAMDAR, J.
