Bombay High Court
Shikshak Sahakari Bank Limited. ... vs M/S I.T. World, Nagpur Thr. ... on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/4 906-wp 1033.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1033 OF 2020
Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Nagpur
vs.
M/s. I. T. World, Nagpur through its Managing Director
Mr. Vinod N. Verma and others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. N. L. Jaiswal, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Sahil Dewani, Advocate for respondent No.1.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE J.
DATE : 13/09/2022
By this petition, the petitioner - bank has
challenged order dated 21/01/2020, passed by the
Court of District Judge - 6 Nagpur, whereby a
condition was imposed on the petitioner - bank to
deposit an amount of Rs.17,19,360/- in the said
Court towards security of the decretal amount as a
condition for stay of decree dated 14/02/2019 passed
by the 8th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur
in Summary Civil Suit No. 140 of 2007.
2. While issuing notice in this petition, this
Court passed the following order on 25/02/2020 :-
KOLHE
2/4 906-wp 1033.2020
"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.
It is submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that instead of imposing condition
of depositing an amount of Rs.17,19,360/-,
the Court below could have imposed a
reasonable condition while exercising power
under Order 41, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil
Procedure for grating stay of the decree
passed against the petitioner.
The statement made on behalf of
the petitioner is that it is ready to furnish
bank guarantee of the aforesaid amount
within a reasonable period, instead of
depositing the entire amount.
Considering the statement made
on behalf of the petitioner, issue notice to
the respondents for final disposal, returnable
in six weeks.
In the meanwhile, the impugned
order shall remain stayed, subject to the
petitioner furnishing bank guarantee in the
Court below for the said amount of
Rs.17,19,360/- within a period of four
weeks from today.
It is made clear that if the
petitioner fails to furnish the aforesaid bank
guarantee within the stipulated period of
time, interim order granted by this Court
shall stand vacated.
Hamdast granted."
KOLHE
3/4 906-wp 1033.2020
3. It is an admitted position that in
pursuance of the aforesaid interim order passed by
this Court, the petitioner - bank indeed furnished
bank guarantee for the amount of Rs.17,19,360/-
before the Court below.
4. Although the learned counsel for the rival
parties made submissions in support of their
respective stands, this Court is of the opinion that it
would be appropriate for the Court below to decide
the pending appeal expeditiously while the interim
order passed by this Court is made absolute, during
the pendency of the appeal before the Court below.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order
passed by the Court of District Judge in Regular Civil
Appeal No.325 of 2019 dated 21/01/2020, stands
modified to the effect that the judgment and decree
dated 14/02/2019 passed by the Court of 8th Joint
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Summary
Civil Suit No.140 of 2007 shall remain stayed, subject
to the aforesaid bank guarantee for an amount of
Rs.17,19,360/- furnished by the petitioner - bank
before the Court below is kept alive during the
pendency of the appeal.
KOLHE
4/4 906-wp 1033.2020
6. The Court below is directed to decide the
appeal expeditiously and in any case within six
months from today.
JUDGE
Digitally signed byRAVIKANT
CHANDRAKANT KOLHE
Signing Date:16.09.2022
10:15
KOLHE
