Union Bank Of India vs Badrilal
2022 Latest Caselaw 6501 MP

                                                                          1
                                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                  AT INDORE
                                                                    FA No. 2259 of 2018
                                                     (UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs BADRILAL AND OTHERS)

                                   Dated : 29-04-2022
                                         Shri Vinay Saraf, learned senior counsel with Shri Vivek Nagar, learned

                                   counsel for the appellants.
                                         Shri Abhimanyu Sanap, learned counsel for the respondents.

Both the parties heard on IA No.5478/2021, which is an application for vacating stay.

Counsel for the appellants submits that by order dated 3.4.2019 passed by

this Court the execution of the money decree was stayed, but the court has not complied the provisions of Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC and no security for due performance of the money decree has been taken from the respondent. It is mandatory as per law. Hence he prays that the stay order dated 3.4.2019 be vacated.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the same and prays for its rejection by submitting written reply.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. reported in (2005) 1 SCC 705 has held that power to grant

stay is discretionary and flows from the jurisdiction conferred on an appellate court which is equitable in nature.

Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau Vs. Bhabhlubhai Virabhai and Company reported in (2005) 4 SCC 1, in the case of Kayamuddin Shamsuddin Khan Vs. State Bank of India reported in (1998) 8 SCC 676 and in the case of Malwa Strips Private Limited Vs. Jyoti Limited reported in (2009) 2 SCC 426.

The stay order dated 3.4.2019 was passed by this Court after hearing both the parties. The decree has been passed against Union Bank of India, which is a Nationalized Bank, therefore, as per the discretion of this Court there is no need to Signature Not Verified SAN impose any condition regarding security. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no need to vacate the stay order dated 3.4.2019. Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Date: 2022.04.30 10:40:08 IST

IA No.5478/2021 is accordingly dismissed. This appeal is of the year 2019, therefore, in respect of IA No.5480/2021, which is an application for urgent hearing, concerned party is directed to file the application for early hearing before the Division Bench of this Court.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE

trilok

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Date: 2022.04.30 10:40:08 IST