Allowed

M/S. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Bombay HC17 Jul 2018CAF/2255/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court permitted the applicant to withdraw the sum of Rs. 1,47,12,489/- deposited by the respondent in the Court Registry. This was done as the respondent had not preferred any further appeal following the final judgment.

What did the court decide?

Permitted withdrawal of Rs. 1,47,12,489/- deposited in the Court Registry with accrued interest, without furnishing security.

M/S. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. Vs United India… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

8.caf.2255.2018.doc

¶2

dik

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2255 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 771 OF 2010

¶5

M/s Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. ...Applicant In the matter between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant. vs M/s Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. ...Respondent.

¶6

Mr Mayur Joglekar I/b D.J.Bhanage for the Applicant. Mrs Ruchika Dave I/b S.S.Vidyarthi for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : K.K.TATED, & B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ. JULY 17, 2018.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Heard learned counsel for parties.

¶10

2 This application is for withdrawal of an amount of Rs.1,47,12,489/- deposited by the appellant – United India Insurance Co. in the Registry of this Court as per the order dated 22^nd November, 2010 passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 2116 of 2010.

¶11

3 Mr Joglekar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court finally decided First Appeal No. 771 of 2010 by the Judgment and Decree dated 11/24^th January, 2018. He submits that as per his instructions, the appellant has not preferred any further appeal.

¶12

4 Learned counsel Mrs Dave for the appellant submits

¶13

Pg 1 of 2

¶14

8.caf.2255.2018.doc

¶15

that she do not have any instructions.

¶16

5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after the Judgment and Decree dated 11/24 January, 2018, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. deposited an amount of Rs.1,91,03,013/- in Trial Court. For that purpose he already made appropriate application for withdrawal. He submits that the applicant may be permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.1,47,12,489/- deposited by the Insurance Company in the Registry of this Court with accrued interest, if any towards partly satisfaction of Decree.

¶17

6 Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and as the advocate for the Insurance Company has no instructions, and there is no any appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, we are satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for allowing him to withdraw the amount lying in the Registry of this Court. Hence, the order.

¶18

(a) The appliant is permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.1,47,12,489/- with accrued interest, if any without furnishing any security towards satisfaction of the Judgment and Decree;

¶19

(b) Liberty granted to the applicant to take appropriate steps, if she desire, for recovery of the deficit amount, if any;

¶20

¶21

(d) No order as to costs.

¶22

Digitally (B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) ( K.K.TATED, J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by Dhanappa DhanappaIrappa Koshti IrappaKoshti Date:2018.07.20 11:41:41 +0530

¶24

Pg 2 of 2

M/S. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra.Thr.the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Vs Shri.Gangaram Pavsha Bhoir (DECEASED)THR.LRS.1/1)SMT.RUKHMINI Gangaram Bhoir @Patil and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra.Thr.the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Vs Shri.Gangaram Pavsha Bhoir (DECEASED)THR.LRS.1/1)SMT.RUKHMINI Gangaram Bhoir @Patil and Ors.

Ramchandra Laxman Pardole (Since Decd) through Lrs and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Baliram Ramji Dhakwal Vs Union of India through Secretary and Ors.

Prakash Vithoba Ubhare Vs the Competent Authority and the Sub Divisional Officer and Ors.

Ganesh Ganapat Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.