Disposed

Mustanshir Shaikh Fakruddin and 2 Ors. v. Sanjay S/O Bhaiyaji Danao

Bombay HC25 Sept 2012CAF/916/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the execution of a money decree for possession and recovery, the Registrar (Judicial) granted a stay on execution pending mediation. The stay is conditional on the appellants depositing Rs. 5,00,000 and furnishing solvent surety to school ten lacs.

What did the court decide?

Stay of execution of impugned decree ordered. Appellants to deposit Rs. 5,00,000 and furnish surety of Rs. 10,00,000.

Mustanshir Shaikh Fakruddin and 2 Ors. Vs Sanjay S/O… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Farad Sheet

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CA(F) No.916/12 in First Appeal No.271/2012

¶5

(Shri Mustanshir Shaikh Fakruddin & ors. Vs- Sanjay B.Danao)

¶6

__________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Shri Nitin Bhishikar, Adv. For appellant.

¶8

CORAM : REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) DATED : 25^th September , 2012

¶9

The appellants, against whom a decree for possession and recovery of amount has been passed by the trial Court, have filed this appeal along with application for stay to the execution of impugned judgment and decree.

¶10

Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the application and say filed by the respondent.

¶11

The respondent obtained the decree of possession of ice-factory and unpaid electricity charges of Rs.3,17,546/- and damages Rs.5,00,000/- with 18% per annum interest. In the suit, the appellants also filed counter claim for specific performance of the contract, but it was dismissed. The main contention of the learned Advocate for the appellants is that while awarding damages of Rs.5,00,000/- the trial Court without there being evidence granted the damages. On the total amount, the trial Court awarded 18% p.a. interest from the date of the suit, whereas no interest is granted on the amount of Rs.One lac, which is to be refunded by the respondent to the appellants. It is further contended that in part performance of the contract, the appellants are in possession of the ice factory. Further it is contended that

¶12

Farad Sheet

¶13

¶14

both the parties have consented to go for mediation to resolve the dispute and accordingly, the mediator is also appointed. The mediation process is in progress. But all of a sudden the respondent without informing the trial Court has filed the application for execution of the decree. Therefore, it is urged to grant stay.

¶15

As per the say of the respondent, there is no case for the appellants and they are guilty of breach of agreement and dishonest conduct. The decreetal amount with interest comes to Rs. 29,36,000/-. It is, therefore, urged not to grant stay as it would not cause any prejudice to the appellants.

¶16

The appeal is admitted. It is a fact that the matter is under consideration before the Mediator. Despite this, the respondent is trying to execute the decree. Therefore, in my opinion, it will be appropriate to grant stay. But since it is also a money decree, the appellants are required to furnish security in order to protect the interest of the respondent. Hence the following order :

¶17

Order

¶18

(i) The impugned judgment and decree is stayed until further order on the condition that the appellants shall deposit Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rs. Five lacs only) in this Court and also furnish solvent surety to the extent of Rs. Ten lacs.

¶19

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶20

Dated: 25/09/2012 (S.P.Muley) Registrar(Judl.)

Mustanshir Shaikh Fakruddin and 2 Ors. v. Sanjay S/O Bhaiyaji Danao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustanshir Shaikh Fakruddin and 2 Ors. v. Sanjay S/O Bhaiyaji Danao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

State of Mah. Thru. Its. Collector, Akola and 2 Ors. Vs Jakiya Sultana Bashratullakhan

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, through Its Chief Executive Officer Vs Chandrashekhar Brijmohan Mor and 3 Others

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., through Its Regional Manager, Nagpur Vs Kambubai W/O Sunderlal Bhilawekar and 2 Others

V.I.D.C. Thr. Its Exe. Engg. Lower Wardha Project Dn. Wardha Vs Shamrao Fagu Wadibhasme and Oths

National Insurance Company Ltd., through the Regional Manager, Nagpur Vs Sudhakar S/O Namdeo Raut and 2 Others

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, through Executive Engineer Vs Sudhakar Devaji Dhole and 2 Others