Pulak Modi And Anr vs Jitendra Agarwal And Ors on 6 January, 2026

Author: Aniruddha Roy

Bench: Aniruddha Roy

               In the High Court at Calcutta
                   Commercial Division
                      Original Side
      Judgment (2)

PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY


                                         IA No. GA-COM/3/2024
                                          In CS-COM/728/2024

                                         PULAK MODI AND ANR
                                                 VS
                                     JITENDRA AGARWAL AND ORS

                                                 AND

                                         IA No. GA-COM/7/2025
                                          In CS-COM/728/2024

                                         PULAK MODI AND ANR
                                                 VS
                                     JITENDRA AGARWAL AND ORS


For the plaintiffs             : Mr. Suman Kumar Dutt, Sr. Adv.
                                 Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Adv.
                                 Ms. Shrayashee Das, Adv.
                                 Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.
                                 Mr. Tridibesh Dasgupta, Adv.
                                 Ms. Anukriti Agarwal, Adv.


For the defendant Nos.1 to 4: Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv.
                              Mr. Orijit Chatterjee, Adv.
                              Ms. Swati Dalmia, Adv.
                              Ms. Sabarni Mukherjee, Adv.
                              Ms. Aishi Chatterjee, Adv.


Heard on             : January 6, 2026

Judgment on          : January 6, 2026
                       [In Court]
                                      2




ANIRUDDHA ROY, J :

In Re: IA No. GA-COM/3/2024

1. Original affidavit in reply is not found in record.

2. Mr. Suman Kumar Dutt, learned Senior Advocate appearing for

the plaintiffs/applicants submits that it is a changed brief for the

present Advocate on Record, so, if necessary, the plaintiffs shall

reaffirm the affidavit in reply and file it in the department.

3. Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, learned Counsel appearing for the

defendant nos.1 to 4, in his usual fairness, submits that copy of

the affidavit in reply has already been served upon them and they

have no objection if the Court proceeds on the basis of a

photocopy of the affidavit in reply and keeps it as part of the

record for the time being.

4. On the basis of the said concession made on behalf of the parties,

the instant application is being taken up for consideration.

5. By consent of the parties, both the applications being IA No.GA-

COM/3/2025 and IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 filed by the plaintiffs

and the defendant nos.1 to 4 respectively are taken up for

analogous consideration.

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

In Re: GA-COM/3/2024 and GA-COM/7/2025

FACTS :

1. IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 (for short "plaintiffs' application") is an

interlocutory application filed by the plaintiffs with the following

prayers:-

"a) Leave be granted to the petitioners to serve a copy of the present application on The Federal Bank Ltd, through its Manager and Operations (Head) having his office at C.R. Avenue, 11, Prafulla Sarkar Street, Ground Floor, Kolkata 700072.

b) An order be passed directing the Manager and Operations (Head) of the Federal Bank Ltd. to disclose and/or furnish the following :

(i) Particulars regarding the balance amount lying in account No.11030100239718 standing in the name of the respondent No.1 with the Federal Bank Ltd., C.R. Avenue Branch.

(ii) A statement of account in respect of the account No.11030100239718 standing in the name of the respondent No.1 with the Federal Bank Ltd., C.R. Avenue Branch for the period April 2024 till 20 August 2024.

(iii) Particulars of any other account maintained by the respondent nos. 2 to 5 with The Federal Bank Ltd., C.R. Avenue Branch, if any.

c) An order be passed directing the respondent No.1 to disclose and/or furnish the details of the amount that was available as balance in bank account No.11030100239718 standing in the name of the

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

respondent No.1 with the Federal Bank Ltd., C.R. Avenue Branch, as of April 2024.

d) An order be passed directing the respondent No.1 to disclose and/or furnish a statement of account in respect of the account No.11030100239718 standing in the name of the respondent No.1 with the Federal Bank Ltd., C.R. Avenue Branch for the period April 2024 upto 20 August 2024.

e) An order be passed directing the respondent No. 1 to 5 to disclose and/or furnish details and/or particulars of all bank accounts maintained by each of them forthwith.

f) An order be passed to the following effect:

(i) The respondent nos.1 to 3 be directed to furnish cash security for the sum of Rs.50 lakhs before the Registrar, Original Side of this Hon'ble Court.

(ii) The respondent no.4 be directed to furnish cash security for the sum of Rs.6,43,70,000/- lakhs before the Registrar, Original Side of this Hon'ble Court.

(iii) The respondent no. 5 be directed to furnish cash security for the sum of Rs.72,20,256/- lakhs before the Registrar, Original Side of this Hon'ble Court.

g) Order dated 13 August 2024 be modified by restraining the respondent No. 5 from operating any of its bank account without setting apart the sum of Rs.72,20,256/-.

h) Costs.

i) Such further and/or other orders be passed and/or direction or directions be given as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

2. IA No. GA-COM/7/2025 is an application (for short "defendants'

application") has been filed by the defendant nos.1 to 4 with the

following prayers:-

"a) An order be passed directing the plaintiffs to furnish a security for a sum of Rs.12,54,25,000/- to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court;

b) In alternative, Show cause as to why the plaintiffs should not furnish security;

c) An order of injunction be passed restraining each of the plaintiffs and/or their men, agents, servants, assigns and/or representatives from transferring, alienating, encumbering, dealing with or disposing of or otherwise creating third party rights in respect of the steel plant at Georgia morefully described in Schedule "A" hereto;

d) An order of injunction be passed restraining the plaintiffs from withdrawing any money to the extent of Rs.12,54,25,000/- from the bank account, the details whereof are given in Schedule "B" hereto;

e) Ad interim orders in terms of prayers above;

f) Costs;

g) Such further and/or other orders can be passed and/or direction or directions be given as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

3. The inescapable facts leading the plaintiffs to file the instant suit

are only narrated. By virtue of a Share Sale Contract (for short

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

"the agreement") dated April 14, 2023, Annexure-A at page 74

to the Affidavit in Opposition (for short "the said A/O") filed in

defendants' application, the plaintiff nos.1 and 2 agreed to sell

their shares of and in respondent no.5 in favour of the defendant

nos. 1 to 4 against an agreed total consideration of

Rs.15,87,40,000/-. The plaintiff no.1 being the 50% shareholder

of and in respondent no.5 claims his part of consideration to the

extent of Rs.7,93,70,000/-. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.1 crore has

been paid to the plaintiff no. 1 and he has received the same.

Therefore, the plaintiffs claim the balance consideration for a sum

of Rs.6,93,70,000/- along with other consequential reliefs

including liquidated damages. The prayers form the plaint are

quoted below:-

"The plaintiffs pray for leave under Clause 12 of the

Letters Patent, 1865 and leave dispending with the

requirement of compliance with pre-institution mediation

and settlement as contemplated under Section 12A of the

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and claims:-

a) Decree for a sum of Rs.50,00,000 as pleaded in paragraph

26 hereinabove against the defendant nos. 1 to 4 jointly

and severally;

b) Decree for a sum of Rs.6,43,70,000 as pleaded in

paragraph 27 hereinabove against the defendant nos. 1 to

4 jointly and severally;

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

c) Decree for a sum of Rs.30,04,054/- towards interest by

way of liquidated damages as pleaded in paragraph 28

hereinabove;

d) Decree for a sum of Rs.70,79,255/- together with interest

of Rs.4,41,001/- by way of liquidated damages as

pleaded in paragraph 29 hereinabove against the

defendant nos. 1 to 5 jointly and severally;

e) Interim interest and interest upon judgment @ 15% per

annum;

f) Receiver;

g) Injunction;

h) Attachment;

i) Such further or other reliefs."

4. The particulars of the claim are set out in paragraph 30 of the

plaint.

5. Since the balance consideration was not paid by the defendants,

the plaintiff no.1 had issued a demand notice dated March 14,

2024 at page 92 of the A/O to GA-COM/7/2025. The demand

letter was replied on behalf of the defendants by a letter dated

April 12, 2024 at page 95 to the said A/O. The principal

contention of the defendants are that despite a sum of Rs.1 crore

having been paid, the defendants did not enjoy the fruit of the

said agreement, as the steel plant at Gerogia (for short "the

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

said steel plaint") was not in an operational condition. A specific

case of fraud has been pleaded by the defendants in their

application that before executing the said agreement, the

plaintiffs knew that they would not be able to hand over the said

steel plant in a working condition and as a result, the defendants

have suffered loss and damages. The defendants through the said

reply dated April 12, 2024 terminated the agreement and

claimed refund of the said sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-(one crore)

paid to the plaintiffs. The defendants had also reserved their right

to claim on account of further loss and damages suffered by

them.

6. Further two communications dated April 16, 2024 at page no.

104 to the said A/O and June 10, 2024 at page no.110 to the

said A/O were exchanged by and between the parties. The

document showing acceptance of possession of the steel plant by

the defendants signed by the defendant no.1 is also available at

page no.106 to the A/O.

7. In the above facts situation, the plaintiffs have filed the first

interlocutory application being IA No. GA-COM/1/2025 when an

ad-interim order was passed by the coordinate Bench on August

13, 2024 and the following interim order was passed.

"46. In view of the above, this Court finds that this is a fit case for invoking the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are restrained from operating the bank account of Federal Bank

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

Account No. 11030100239718, C.R. Avenue Branch, Kolkata by keeping aside an amount of Rs.6,93,70,000/- till 17th September, 2024."

8. Being aggrieved by the said order of the coordinate Bench the

defendants preferred an appeal being AO-COM/32/2024. The

Hon'ble Division Bench by its judgment and order dated

December 1, 2025, the typographical error in the said order was

corrected by another order dated December 8, 2025, had

disposed of the appeal with the following observations:

"41. As noted above, the petition in which, impugned order was passed, is yet to be finally decided. Therefore, we are minded to interfere at the ad-interim order stage. We are keeping all points open for the learned Single Judge to decide as to the nature and extent of the relief that the plaintiffs may be granted on final hearing of the application.

42. AO-COM 32 of 2024 along with all connected applications are disposed of without any order as to costs."

9. On August 20, 2024 Annexure 'G' at page no. 70 to plaintiffs'

application the Federal Bank informed that in absence of

appropriate direction upon the bank requisitioning necessary

information issued by Court of competent jurisdiction or without

mandate of account holder, the bank will not be able to divulge

the information to any third party. At this juncture, the instant

two applications are taken up for analogous consideration by this

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

Court. A letter of the bank dated August 14, 2024 Annexure 'E'

at page no. 68, plaintiff's application shows that only a sum of

Rs.72,822/- was available in the bank account of the

defendants.

SUBMISSION:

10. Mr. Suvasish Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for

defendant nos. 1 to 4 has first placed the defendant's

application. He submits that as on the date of the direction

made by the coordinate Bench, the necessary fund was not

available at the relevant bank account of Federal Bank on

which direction was issued by the coordinate Bench and as

such the question of setting apart the sum of more than

Rupees six crores, as directed by the coordinate Bench, did not

and could not arise. He further submits that the plaintiffs have

committed breach of the said agreement as the steel plant was

not made operational for being operated by the defendants,

though the defendants had already paid a sum of

Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One crore) as part consideration under the

said agreement to the plaintiff. As a result, the defendants has

suffered loss and damages. The defendants has lodged its

counter claim in the written statement. The defendants has

claimed a total sum of Rs.12,54,25,000/- from the plaintiff on

various counts including refund of the said sum of

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One crore) and the particulars of the said

claim is set out in paragraph 54 of the defendants' application.

11. Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for the

defendants submits that the plaintiffs' claim is principally on

account of alleged liquidated damages as mentioned in the

plaint, which has not yet been quantified. Only after trial of

the suit if the plaintiffs succeed to their claim then only the

claim of the plaintiff will be quantified and at the stage in

execution of decree the question may arise whether the

defendant would require to secure the decretal claim or not.

He submits that at this interlocutory stage the defendants

cannot be directed either to disclose the bank accounts with

the particulars of amount lying there or to secure the alleged

claim of the plaintiff in any manner. In support, he has relied

upon a decision In the matter of: VK Bajaj and Co. Vs.

Nayati Healthcare and Research NCR Pvt. Ltd. And Anr,

reported at 2021 SCC Online Del 5637.

12. Mr. Sengupta, learned Advocate then submits that since the

defendants have already terminated the contract and the

termination is not under challenge in the plaint, the only

remedy lies with the plaintiffs in damages and is required to be

quantified only after trial of the suit and not at this interim

stage. He further submits that the plaintiffs have neither

asked for specific performance of the contract nor has asked for

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

cancellation of termination of the contract terminated by the

defendants, therefore the present suit in its present form is not

maintainable. If the suit is prima facie not maintainable, the

Court cannot take a prima facie view or finding for any

direction upon the defendant in aid of the reliefs claimed in the

suit. In support, he has relied upon a decision In the matter

of: I. S. Sikandar Vs. K. Subramani And Ors. reported at

(2013) 15 SCC 27.

13. Mr. Sengupta, learned Advocate further submits that if on the

basis of the alleged claim of the plaintiff, on account of

damages, defendant is directed to disclose its bank account or

to secure the alleged claim of the plaintiff then on the same

breath on the basis of the counter claim of the defendant, on

account of damages against the plaintiffs, the plaintiff would

have to secure the claim of the defendant.

14. Mr. Suman Kumar Dutt, learned senior Advocate appearing for

the plaintiffs has referred to the various clauses from the said

agreement. He submits that on a plain reading of the said

agreement it is evident that the agreement was only for transfer

of shares by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants against

the agreed sale consideration. He submits that the plaintiff

has never indemnified the defendant on account of the said

steel plant in any manner whatsoever. The four essential

documents which are on record, namely, the said agreement,

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

the certificate/undertaking of taking possession of the steel

plant by the defendants, the demand notice dated March 14,

2024, the reply thereto dated April 12, 2024 along with the

subsequent two communications dated April 16, 2024 and

June 10, 2024 would clearly demonstrate that the execution of

the agreement with all its terms and conditions have been

admitted by the parties. The subject shares under the said

agreement have duly been transferred in favour of the

defendants by the plaintiffs. The defendants have taken

possession of the steel plant. In part performance, the

defendants have paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-(one crore)

being the part consideration under the said agreement. the

defendants have never raised any objection whatsoever either

with regard to the execution or existence of the agreement or

with regard to the status and situation of the steel plant

contemporaneously. Only after receiving the said demand

notice dated March 14, 2024 the defendants purported to have

raised objections through its reply dated April 12, 2024 and

sought to terminate the contract.

15. Learned senior Advocate Mr. Dutt further submits, from the

prayers in the plaint it would be evident that the plaintiffs have

claimed the balance sale consideration price from the

defendants and the consequential liquidated damages suffered

by them. Referring to the provisions laid down under Section 3

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 he submits that except as

otherwise provided under the Act, nothing in the Act shall be

deemed to deprive any person or any right to relief, other than

specific performance, which he may have under any contract.

He submits that under the said agreement the plaintiffs have

performed its entire obligation but the defendants have caused

breach by not paying the entire sale consideration payable to

the plaintiffs under the agreement. Thus, the plaintiffs have

filed the instant suit claiming the balance consideration

payable to the plaintiff along with other consequential reliefs

including the liquidated damages. It is not at all obligatory on

the part of the plaintiff to seek cancellation of the said alleged

termination of contract allegedly terminated by the defendants

or to claim specific performance of the contract.

16. Referring to the claims made by the defendants in its counter

claim and referring to the particulars of claim of the defendants

stated in paragraph 54 of the defendants' application, learned

senior Counsel submits that except the said refund of

Rs.1,00,00,000/-(one crore) which is quantified, though not

admitted by the plaintiffs, all the other quantum of claims are

in the nature of alleged damages, which unless proved cannot

be directed to be secured by the plaintiffs. The amount has not

been segregated by the defendants pursuant to the previous

direction of the Co-ordinate Bench being upheld by the Hon'ble

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

Division Bench and the admitted position is that save and

except a sum of Rs. 1 crore no further amount has been paid to

the plaintiffs by the defendants under the said agreement.

DECISION:

17. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on

perusal of the materials on record this Court finds that few

facts are admitted, which are inescapable. The execution and

existence of the agreement, the transfer of entire share holding

by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants, the existence and

execution of the said possession document by which

defendants accepted possession of the steel plant and the part

consideration paid by the defendants to the plaintiff for a sum

of Rs.1,00,00,000/-(one crore) under the said agreement are

admitted. The two relevant clauses from the said agreement

are quoted below:

"1. The sellers on the date of this contract have respectively sold and transferred the Equity Sale shares and the Preference Sale Sharers to the Purchasers and the Purchasers on the date hereof have purchased and received the Equity Sale Sharers from the individual Sellers and the Preference Sale Sharers from the Corporate Sellers, who have also agreed to cause the Equity Sale Sharers and the Preference Sale Sharers to be duly transferred and registered in favour and in the name of the

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

Purchasers, as set out morefully in the First Schedule hereto, separately in Part A for the Equity Sale Sharers and in Part B for the Preference Sale Sharers.

2. The Equity Sale Sharers and the Preference Sale Sharers sold and transferred by the individual Sellers and Corporate Sellers respectively to the Purchasers are free from all encumbrances and confer on the Purchasers full right, title and interest attached thereto. The Sellers however make no covenant, representation or warranty in relation to the Steel Plant and the physical possession thereof upon purchase of the Sale Sharers by the Purchasers has been received and accepted by the Purchasers on as- is-where-is and as-is-what-it-is basis and the Purchasers will not be entitled to raise any claims, issues or concerns in respect thereof whether on account of the past or in future."

18. The above provisions under the said agreement clearly show

that the plaintiffs have not indemnified or executed any

warranty in favour of the defendants in relation to the steel

plant and the physical possession thereof upon purchase of the

shares by the purchasers/defendants. The defendants

accepted the steel plant as is where is basis and the defendants

would not be entitled to raise any claims, issuance or concerns

in respect thereof on account of the past or in future. Being

agreed to the said terms, the defendants executed the

agreement and received possession of the steel plant by

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

executing the said possession certificate at page no. 106 to the

said A/O dated April 14, 2023. The document itself, prima

facie, shows a clear undertaking executed by the defendant

no.1 with regard to the acceptance of possession of the steel

plant.

19. In as much as, the direction of the coordinate Bench dated

August 13, 2024 with regard to the restricted operation of the

Federal Bank account has not been interfered by the Hon'ble

Division Bench in appeal. The record further reveals from the

communication made by the Federal Bank that for about a sum

of Rs.72,822/- is only lying with the bank account, as already

narrated above. Therefore, the defendants are not in a position

to set apart the claim of the plaintiff, as directed by the

coordinate Bench subsequently being upheld by the Hon'ble

Division Bench.

20. In course of hearing the defendants have not been able to

establish that it has otherwise sufficient means through which

it can set apart the claim of the plaintiff pursuant to and in

terms of the direction of the said coordinate Bench. Through

affidavits filed by the defendants in both these applications, the

defendants have not been able to establish before this Court

that any subsequent development has taken place for which

any further order can be passed other than the direction

already made by the coordinate Bench.

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

21. On perusal of the claim made by the defendants, as fully stated

in paragraph 54 of the defendants' application, save and except

the refund of Rs. 1 crore all other claims are on account of

alleged damages or compensation and none such claims has

been crystallized nor proved, as yet. These claims can sustain

only upon being proved at the trial of the suit, if the defendants

can prove it. Whereas it is an admitted position that out of the

total sale consideration of Rs.7,93,70,000/- only a sum of Rs.1

crore has been paid by the defendants, though the entire share

holdings has been transferred by the plaintiffs in favour of the

defendants. The defendants may succeed to its counter claim at

the time of trial of the suit. Similarly, the plaintiff may fail to

prove its claim at the final trial of the suit but at the present, it

prima facie appears to this Court that, the defendants have not

paid the balance consideration to the extent of

Rs.6,93,70,000/- under the said agreement. Moreover, despite

the direction of the coordinate Bench having attained finality

before the Hon'ble Division Bench, the defendants do not have

the requisite amount in its bank account with Federal Bank, so

that it can set apart the claim of the plaintiff as directed by the

Co-ordinate Bench.

22. In the matter of : V. K. Bajaj and Co. (supra), the law laid

down is that unsecured debt cannot be converted into a

secured debt. In the instant case, the defendants, prima facie,

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

has not paid the plaintiffs the entire consideration under the

said agreement despite the shares being transferred by the

plaintiffs in favour of the defendants. A part consideration has

been paid to the extent of Rs. 1 crore. So the Co-ordinate Bench

directed to segregate the unpaid consideration which has not

been done by the defendants. Therefore, the ratio laid down in

the said judgment would not apply in the facts of the instant

case.

23. In the matter of: I.S. Sikandar (supra) the law laid down is

that in the facts of that case money suit is not permitted

simplicitor unless specific performance of the contract is

sought for. The judgment was delivered after the suit was

decreed in connection with appeal from decree. In the instant

case, it is an interim stage which would not have any bearing

when the suit would be finally heard for passing a decree.

Therefore, the ratio in the said judgment would not apply in the

facts of this case.

24. Since the defendants have already paid a sum of Rs. 1 crore

under the said agreement, they can be granted a benefit of the

said sum at this interim stage in exercise of the equitable

jurisdiction of this Court.

25. In view of the foregoing discussions and reasons, this Court is

prima facie satisfied on the case made out by the plaintiffs and

the balance of convenience and inconvenience also warrant

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

necessary directions to be passed on the defendants, which are

as follows:

(a) The plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order upon the

concerned branch of the Federal Bank.

(b) The appropriate authority of the concerned branch of the

Federal Bank by way of an affidavit shall disclose the

current status with reference to the amount lying at the

relevant bank account of the defendants mentioned in

prayer (b) to the plaintiff's application with the

supportive account statement positively within three

weeks from the date of communication of this order.

(c) The concerned authority of the branch of Federal Bank

shall also state in the said affidavit if any other Bank

account is there in the name of the defendant Nos. 1 to

4 with the said Bank.

(d) The defendant nos. 1 to 4 by way of an affidavit shall

disclose all the bank accounts held by them and in their

name in whatever Banks they are with the supporting

Bank statement as on the current date. Such affidavit

shall be filed within four weeks from date.

(e) The defendant nos. 1 to 4 shall furnish a security for a

sum of Rs.5,43,70,000/- after giving an adjustment of

Rs.1 crore for the time being, without prejudice to the

rights and contentions of the plaintiffs, as an interim

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.

arrangement with the learned Registrar, Original Side

positively within six weeks from date.

26. In the event, such deposit is made, Registrar, Original Side

shall invest the same in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit

Account with any Nationalized Bank of his/her choice and

shall prepare a report and keep the same in the original suit

file. It is needless to mention that the Fixed Deposit shall be

kept in an auto-renewal mode. The fate of the deposit shall

abide by the final result in the suit.

27. With the above observations and directions, IA GA-

COM/3/2024 stands allowed and IA GA-COM/7/2025

stands dismissed, without any order as to costs.

(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)

RS/mg/dg

IA No. GA-COM/3/2024 IA No.GA-COM/7/2025 In CS-COM/728/2024 A.R., J.