Dismissed

M/S. Dolphin Inpression Pvt. Ltd. v. United Spirits Ltd. (Shaw Wallace Distilleries Ltd.)

Bombay HC25 Sept 2014CAF/1087/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil application, the applicant sought to set aside a previous order due to alleged non-deposit of 75% of the decretal amount and claimed compound interest under Section 5 of the Interest on Delayed Payments Act. The High Court kept the interest claim open and rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

The application was rejected; the claim for compound interest kept open for final hearing.

M/S. Dolphin Inpression Pvt. Ltd. Vs United Spirits… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

vrd 1 CAF1087/14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1087 OF 2014 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.575 OF 2013

¶5

M/s Dolphin Impression Pvt.Ltd. v/s

¶6

United Spirits Ltd. and others

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr Harshad L. Palwe for Applicant.

¶10

Mr Shiraz Rustomjee with Ms Prem Thakkar and Mr Rahul Jain i/b M/s RES Legal for Appellant in F.A. No.575 of 2013.

¶11

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND

¶12

B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ.

¶13

DATE : 25TH SEPTEMBER 2014.

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

Heard. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits

¶16

that in view of the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, S.D., Nashik in Special Civil Suit No.330 of 2004 on 31st December 2012 and consequential order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Application No.1997 of 2013 on 26th June 2013, the Appellant has failed to deposit 75 % of the

¶17

vrd 2 CAF1087/14

¶18

decretal amount. The learned counsel submits that in view of section 5 of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale And Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act 1993, compound interest ought to have been deposited by the Respondents. The learned counsel further submits that the cross objections are filed in the proceedings by the present Applicant.

¶19

The learned Senior Counsel for the original Appellant submits that in accordance with the order passed by the Division Bench on 26^th June 2013, the Appellant had deposited 75 % of the decretal amount. The learned Counsel submits that in case the present applicant insists for payment of amount alongwith compound interest, then they are at liberty to raise appropriate issue in the cross objections.

¶20

We have perused the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court and the Division Bench of this Court while granting rule in Civil Application No.1997 of 2013. The learned counsel appearing for the Original Appellant herein submitted that an amount of Rs.71,47,174/- was deposited which according

¶21

vrd 3 CAF1087/14

¶22

to the learned counsel comes to 75 % of the decretal amount. Prima facie, the said calculation is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. The other issues raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in respect of grant of compound interest in view of the provisions of section 5 of the Act is kept open for consideration at the final hearing stage. We are therefore not inclined to entertain the Application or to issue any further direction to the Respondent – original Appellant in

¶23

this regard. The Application is rejected.

¶24

( B.P. COLABAWALLA J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL J. )

M/S. Dolphin Inpression Pvt. Ltd. v. United Spirits Ltd. (Shaw Wallace Distilleries Ltd.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Dolphin Inpression Pvt. Ltd. v. United Spirits Ltd. (Shaw Wallace Distilleries Ltd.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Dilip D. Amane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Ors.

Shri. Dilip D. Amane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Ors.

Bharat Forge Employees Union, Chakan Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors.

Vivek S/O Sudhakarroa Kulkarni Vs the State Bank of India and Others

Mr. Chandrashekhar R. Piske Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Anr.

Mr. Chandrashekhar R. Piske Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Anr.