Dismissed

Shri. Rameshchandra Manoharlal Rungta v. Shri. Mohammad Jamil Ejahulhak Mansuri and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jan 2020CAF/3441/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Civil Application bench declined to recall the order permitting withdrawal of funds by the respondent. The court directed the respondent to file an undertaking and identity proof before the learned Commissioner within two weeks to secure the amount pending the final outcome of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 30th January 2018 is not recalled; respondent directed to file undertaking identifying him and agreeing to refund amount if applicant succeeds in appeal.

Shri. Rameshchandra Manoharlal Rungta Vs Shri… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2020)

kvm

1/3

6-CAF3441.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3441 OF 2019 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2945 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1048 OF 2013

¶5

Rameshchandra Manoharlal Rungta

¶6

….. Applicant

¶7

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶8

Rameshchandra Manoharlal Rungta ….. Appellant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Mohammad Jamil Ejahulhak Mansuri & Ors. ….. Respondents

¶11

Mr.D.S.Hatle, a/w. Mr.Deepak Jamsandekar for the Applicant/Original Appellant.

¶12

Mr.Suraj Naik, i/b. Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi for the Respondent no.1.

¶13

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 29^th JANUARY, 2020

¶14

P.C .

¶15

By this civil application, the applicant seeks recall of the order dated 30^th January,2018 passed by this court and seeks condonation of delay of 336 days in filing civil application.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the grounds raised in the appeal memo.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant (original respondent) this court had passed an order dated 30^th January,2018 permitting the respondent to withdraw a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- along

2/3

kvm

6-CAF3441.19

with accrued interest on usual undertaking before the learned Commissioner. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent has already withdrawn the said amount.

¶22

It is the grievance of the applicant that the respondent was not properly identified before the M.A.C.T. at the time of withdrawal of the said amount and also has not filed any undertaking before the learned Commissioner.

¶23

The applicant had filed a separate application inter alia praying for review of the said order dated 30^th January,2018 and thereafter sought liberty to withdraw the said review application.

¶24

The applicant has filed this civil application for recall of the order dated 30^th January,2018. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to recall the said order dated 30^th January,2018. The respondent who has already withdrawn the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- out of the larger amount deposited by the applicant shall file undertaking before the learned Commissioner within two weeks from today to the effect that if the applicant succeeds in the first appeal, the respondent would return the said amount that would be withdrawn with interest at such rate as this court may direct by subsequent order. A copy of such undertaking shall be served upon the applicant’s advocate simultaneously.

¶25

At the stage of filing an undertaking the respondent shall submit a proof of his identity before the learned Commissioner. Only after identifying the respondent, the learned Commissioner shall accept such undertaking. If such undertaking is not filed within a period of two

3/3

kvm

6-CAF3441.19

weeks from today, the respondent in that event shall re-deposit the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- before the learned Commissioner within two weeks thereafter.

¶30

Civil application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

¶31

[R.D.DHANUKA, J.]

Shri. Rameshchandra Manoharlal Rungta v. Shri. Mohammad Jamil Ejahulhak Mansuri and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Rameshchandra Manoharlal Rungta v. Shri. Mohammad Jamil Ejahulhak Mansuri and Ors.

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

Bhanumati Jaisukhbhai Bhuta Vs Ivory Properties and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Vasantben Ramniklal Bhuta Vs Ivory Properties and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Shri. Dilip Manohar Jawalkar and Anr. Vs the National Insurance Co.Ltd. and Ors.

Maharashtra State Powerloom Corporation Limited Vs the Bombay Dyeing and Menufacturing Company Limited and Anr.

Smt. Sankita Sunil Patil and Ors. Vs Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Thr. Its Manager Mr. Priyank Shah

Ashok Khandu Ladkar Vs Ajay Maruti Patil and Anr.