Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Lovable Lingerie Ltd vs M/S Superfine Knitters Limited And Ors on 25 November, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154847
CR-6469-2024 [1]
116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-6469-2024
Date of decision: 25.11.2024
M/s Lovable Lingerie Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
M/s Superfine Knitters Limited and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 26.04.2024
(Annexure P-1) whereby warrants of attachment have been issued attaching
the Cash Credit Account of the petitioner and order dated 21.09.2024
(Annexure P-2) whereby an application for recalling of warrants of
attachment has been dismissed.
2. On 07.11.2024, this Court had passed the following order:-
"Inter alia contends that the petitioner has filed an
appeal against the judgment dated 02.04.2024 and in the said
appeal, along with the application for delay, an application
under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC for stay has also been filed and in
the said appeal, notice has been issued on the delay
application as well as on the application under Order 41 Rule
5 CPC for 16.08.2024 and now the case is listed for
07.11.2024 i.e., for today for appearance of the respondent. It
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154847
CR-6469-2024 [2]
is submitted that at least till the time the application for
condonation of delay and the application for stay is decided,
the direction to transfer the decretal amount from the bank
account of the J.D. to the bank account of the D.H. as passed
in the order dated 21.09.2024, which has not been done till
date, be stayed. It is submitted that for securing the rights of
the D.H., the petitioner is ready to furnish bank guarantee of
the decretal amount along with interest upto date.
Notice of motion to respondent no.1 for 25.11.2024.
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to serve the
respondent no.1 through dasti process as well as through
counsel before the trial Court.
To be shown in the urgent list.
Till the next date of hearing, the direction contained in
the order dated 21.09.2024 to transfer the decretal amount
from the bank account of the J.D. to the bank account of D.H.,
if not already done, is stayed.
It is made clear that in case respondent no.1 is not
served till the next date of hearing, then the present interim
order would be liable to be vacated."
3. During the course of arguments, it has been brought to the
notice of this Court that the main case along with application for
condonation of delay as well as stay application are now listed for
06.03.2025. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the
present revision petition is disposed of in the following terms:-
i) The First Appellate Court is requested to decide the application for
condonation of delay and the stay application within a period of 10
days from 06.03.2025. The same be done in case the main appeal
itself cannot be decided within the aforesaid period for any reason.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154847
CR-6469-2024 [3]
ii) Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that they would
appear in the said appeal and would be prepared to argue the matter
on 06.03.2025 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also
stated that they would also be prepared to argue the matter on
06.03.2025 itself and would fully assist the Court in expeditious
disposal of the applications for condonation of delay, stay as well as
the main appeal.
iii) The petitioner as undertaken before this Court would furnish bank
guarantee of the decretal amount along with interest upto date, on or
before 12.12.2024.
iv) In case, the petitioner gives bank guarantee as aforesaid then till the
time the application for condonation of delay along with stay
application is decided, the amount from the bank account of the
petitioner would not be deducted. Subsequent proceedings in the
execution would depend upon the orders passed on the application for
condonation of delay/stay application.
v) It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the
case and the First Appellate Court would independently consider the
application for condonation of delay, stay application and the main
appeal and it would be open to both the parties to raise all the pleas as
are available to them in accordance with law before the First
Appellate Court.
25.11.2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
