Bombay High Court
Trisons Developers Llp vs Swarup Group Of Industries And Ors on 7 November, 2025
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2025:BHC-OS:20303 501-IAL-35472-2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.35472 OF 2025
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2683 OF 2025
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.581 OF 2010
M/s. Trisons Developers LLP ...Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing
Federation of India Ltd. (NAFED) ...Applicant
Versus
Swarup Group of Industries & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Devashish Godbole a/w. Mr. Prasad Nagargoje, Mr. Ryan Petus,
for the Applicant.
Mr. Ankit Tiwari i/b. Mr. Shashipal Shankar, for the Respondent
No.1.
Mr. D. V. Deokar i/b. Parimal K. Shroff & Co., for the Respondent
No.2.
Ms. Kainaz Irani i/b. Das Associates, for the Respondent Nos.3 and
4.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 7th NOVEMBER 2025
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Devashish Godbole, learned Counsel for the
Applicant, Mr. Ankit Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Respondent
Page 1
Sonali
501-IAL-35472-2025.DOC
No.1, Mr. Deokar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and
Ms. Irani, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. Mr. Ankit Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1
and Mr. Deokar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submit
that by consent the relief sought in the Interim Application be
granted.
3. Ms. Irani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent
Nos.3 and 4 i.e. Judgment Debtors strongly opposes the Interim
Application, wherein the relief sought is extension of time granted
by a learned Single Judge by order dated 17 th September 2025.
Clause No.3 of the order dated 17th September 2025 passed by a
learned Single Judge (Coram: Abhay Ahuja, J.) passed in Interim
Application No.2683 of 2025 in Execution Application No.518 of
2010 reads as under:
"3. Mr. Godbole submits that Rs.16 Cr would be
paid within a period of three weeks from today and
the balance amount of Rs.47.50 Crs would be paid
within 30 days after making the first payment of
Rs.16 Crs."
Page 2
Sonali
501-IAL-35472-2025.DOC
4. The Applicant-M/s. Trisons Developers LLP in Interim
Application (L) No.35472 of 2025 is the Auction Purchaser and the
Applicant-National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation
of India Ltd. (NAFED) in Execution Application No.518 of 2010 is
the Decree Holder and the Respondent No.3 is the Developer.
5. The Decree Holder, the Auction Purchaser and the Developer
i.e. Applicant and the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the Interim
Application (L) No.35472 of 2025 have agreed to allow the prayer
clauses (B) and (C) of the Interim Application by consent. Said
prayer clauses read as under:
"B. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to extend the
time granted in paragraph No.3 of Order dt.
17.09.2025 and paragraph III (c) of the Consent
Terms dt. 08.09.2025 by way a period of 30 days.
C. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to postpone
the Deadlines raised in the Order dt. 17.09.2025
and Consent Terms dt. 08.09.2025 by a further
period of 45 days."
6. It is the submission of Ms. Irani, learned Counsel appearing
for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 that no such extension can be
Page 3
Sonali
501-IAL-35472-2025.DOC
granted in view of express provision of Order XXI, Rule 84 to 86 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
7. However, it is required to be noted that the Respondent
No.1-Swarup Group of Industries is the Award Debtor/Judgment
Debtor concerning the Award which has been passed in the year
2008. In fact, it is the Award Debtor who has to comply with the
Decree/Award. The Execution Application is filed in the year 2010
and till date i.e. till 2025 after a period of 15 years from the filing
of the Execution Application and after 17 years of passing of the
Award, the Decree Holder/Award Holder is not in a position to get
the fruits of the Award.
8. The Privy Council1 about 150 years ago has said that the
difficulties of the litigant in India begin when he has obtained a
decree. The said observation of the Privy Council are applicable to
the present case.
9. The Supreme Court in the recent decision in the case of
Periyammal (Dead) through Lrs. vs. V. Rajamani2 has reiterated
1 1872 SCC OnLine PC 16
2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507
Page 4
Sonali
501-IAL-35472-2025.DOC
what is held by the Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra
Kumar Gandhi3 requiring the execution proceedings to be
completed within six months from the date of filing.
10. In view of these circumstances, a query is put to the learned
Counsel appearing for the Award Debtor/Judgment Debtor
whether the Judgment Debtor will deposit an amount of Rs.64
crores in this Court within a period of one week. However, learned
Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that
the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not in a position to deposit the
said amount immediately and time will be required.
11. Thus, factual position on record clearly shows that the award
which has been passed in the year 2008 is not executed even in the
year 2025.
12. At this stage, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent
Nos.3 and 4 i.e. the Judgment Debtor states that the said amount
of Rs.64 Crores will be deposited in this Court within a period of
45 days, however, the said Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not ready
3 (2021) 6 scc 418
Page 5
501-IAL-35472-2025.DOC
to offer any security for ensuring that the said statement will be
complied with. It is very clear that the said statement is made to
just frustrate the Execution Proceedings. Accordingly, the said
request is rejected.
13. There is no substance in the contentions raised that in view
of the provisions of Order XXI Rule 84 to 86 of the CPC, the time
cannot be extended. Order 21 Rule 85 (Bombay Amendment) is as
under:
"High Court Amendment - [Bombay].- For the
existing rule 85, substitute the following rule and
marginal note:-
"85. Time for payment in full of purchase money.-
The full amount of purchase money payable,
together with the amount required for the general
stamp paper for the certificate under rule 94, shall
be paid by the purchaser into Court before the
Court closes on the 15th day from the date of the
sale of the property:
Provided that, in respect of the purchase-money, the
purchaser shall have the advantage of any set-off to
which he may be entitled under rule 72:
Provided further that, if as a result of some bona
fide mistake or miscalculation the amount deposited
falls short of the full amount of the purchase-money,
the Court may in its discretion, allow the shortfall to
be made up after fifteen days of the sale, and if the
full amount of the purchase-money is deposited
within such time as the Court may allow, the Court
Page 6
501-IAL-35472-2025.DOC
may condonoe the delay, if it considers it just and
proper to do so.
Explanation.- When the amount is tendered in
Court on any day after 1.00 P.M. but is not accepted
by the Court and is paid into Court on the next
working day between 11.00 A.M. and 1.00 P.M., the
payment shall be deemed to have been made on the
day on which the tender is made."
Thus, the power is with the Court to extend the time. The
said discretion can be exercised in the facts and circumstances,
more particularly when the Judgment Debtor has given consent for
extension of time.
14. By consent of the Applicant who is the Auction Purchaser,
the Respondent No.1 who is the Decree Holder and the
Respondent No.2-Silvermoon Constructions Private Ltd. who is the
developer, the Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (B) and (C).
15. Accordingly, the Interim Application is disposed of in above
terms with no order as to costs.
Digitally
signed by
SONALI [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
2025.11.07
19:55:13
+0530
Page 7
Sonali
