Bombay High Court
Yadav Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Bank Of India And Anr on 18 September, 2025
025:BHC-AS:6
Megha 3_wp_3809_2018.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3809 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.190 OF 2020
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1027 OF 2021
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1028 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3809 OF 2018
Yadav Consultacny Services Pvt. Ltd.
through its Managing Director. ...Petitioner
V/s.
Bank of India ...Respondent
______________
Mr. Prakash Wamanrao Yadav, Petitioner in-person, present.
Mr. Anant B. Shinde with Ms. Anuja Patil i/b. M/s. Anant Shinde and
Co. for the Respondent.
______________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated: 18 SEPTEMBER 2025.
P.C.:
1) The challenge in the present Petition is to the order dated 16
February 2018 passed by the Executing Court on Special Darkhast
No.1741 of 2012. By the impugned order the application filed by the
Judgment Debtor at Exhibit-79 has been allowed and the Petitioner -
Decree Holder is directed to be detained in the civil prison for disobeying
orders passed on applications below Exhibits 64 and 71 until further
orders.
18 September 2025
Megha 3_wp_3809_2018.docx
2) I have heard the Petitioner in-person and Mr. Shinde, the
learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.
3) After having considered the submissions and after going
through the findings recorded in the impugned order it is seen that the
Petitioner -Decree Holder was allowed to withdraw an amount of
Rs.1,21,64,656/- in pursuance of orders passed below Exhibits-28 and 32.
The Judgment Debtor had filed an application at Exhibit-64 for
furnishing bank guarantee by the Decree Holder to cover the withdrawn
amount of Rs.1,21,64,656/-. By order dated 29 April 2016 passed on
application at Exhibit-64, the Decree Holder was directed to furnish bank
guarantee covering 50% of the withdrawn amount. It appears that
Petitioner- Decree Holder did not comply with order dated 29 April 2016.
This triggered application at Exhibit-71 on behalf of Respondent-
Judgment Debtor for direction against Decree Holder for deposit of entire
withdrawn amount. The Application at Exhibit-71 came to be allowed on
22 June 2016 and the Petitioner -Decree Holder was directed to redeposit
the entire withdrawn amount.
4) After passing of the orders dated 29 April 2016 and 22 June
2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed judgment and order dated 5
December 2017 setting aside the Award of MSMED Council. While
setting aside the Arbitral Award the Supreme Court granted liberty to the
Respondent -Bank to recover amount of Rs.1,22,00,000/- withdrawn by
the Petitioner- Decree Holder after adjusting the payment due to him upto
24 July 2008. The relevant direction in paragraph 15 of the order of the
Supreme Court reads thus:-
15. The impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The
appellant Bank is free to recover the amount of Rs.1,22,00,000/-
18 September 2025
Megha 3_wp_3809_2018.docx
withdrawn by the first respondent after adjusting the payments due
upto 24.07.2008. The bank is permitted to withdraw the amount of
Rs.93,22,590/- along with accrued interest. So far as the charges
towards security services payable to the first respondent after
24.07.2008, liberty is granted to the first respondent to proceed against
the auction purchasers-respondents No.2 and 3 in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.
5) Attention of the Executing Court was brought to the order
passed by the Supreme Court on 5 December 2017 and the said order is
noted by the Executing Court in paragraph 8 of the impugned order. In
my view, the Executing Court ought to have appreciated that the order
passed on 22 June 2016 on application at Exhibit 71 for redeposit of
withdrawn amount had lost its basis after passing of order by the
Supreme Court on 5 December 2017. The order passed by the Supreme
Court merely accords liberty to the Respondent -Bank to recover amount
of Rs.1,22,00,000/- from the Petitioner-Decree Holder. However, this
liberty is qualified with a direction that the Respondent -Bank must first
adjust the payment due to Petitioner-Decree Holder upto 24 July 2008.
The Executing Court therefore ought to have first determined the exact
amount due by the Respondent -Bank to the Petitioner -Decree Holder
upto 24 July 2008 and ought to have passed a fresh order for bringing
back the recalculated amount to the Court. Since the order passed by the
Supreme Court on 5 December 2017 envisages adjustment of amount
payable to the Petitioner -Decree Holder upto 24 July 2008 a factual
enquiry was necessary to determine the exact amount payable by the
Respondent to the Petitioner. It is only after adjusting the said amount
payable to the by the Petitioner, the Executing Court could have taken
some action in the matter. However, though the Executing Court has
noted order of the Supreme Court passed on 5 December 2017 in
paragraph 8 of the impugned order, it has failed to give effect to the said
direction and has proceeded to direct detention of the Petitioner-Decree
18 September 2025
Megha 3_wp_3809_2018.docx
Holder in civil prison for non-compliance with the order passed on 22
June 2016.
6) In my view, therefore the order passed by the Executing Court
on 16 February 2018 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Order
dated 16 February 2018 passed by the District Judge in Special Darkhast
No.1741 of 2012 is set aside. Petition is allowed to above extent and
disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.
7) In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, Civil /Interim
Applications do not survive and the same stand disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 18 September 2025
Date: 19/09/2025 10:56:30
