Dismissed

Wonedulfo Antonio Da Costa v. Felvira Irene Godinho and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jul 2021MCA/51/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed an application seeking to modify an order requiring the applicant to deposit 50% of the decretal amount to obtain interim suspension. The court held that the applicant failed to deposit the required sum and no case was made out for modification.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking modification of the order dated 09.12.2020 was dismissed.

Wonedulfo Antonio Da Costa Vs Felvira Irene… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

27-mca-51-2021 in stm-3945-2019(F)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No.51 OF 2021 IN STAMP NUMBER (MAIN) No.3945 OF 2019(FILING)

¶5

Wonedulfo Antonio Da Costa

¶6

.... Applicant

¶7

V e r s u s

¶8

Felvira Irene Godinho And 3 Ors

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶11

Mr. S. G. Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vincent D'Souza, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶12

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J

¶13

DATE : 13th July, 2021

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Heard Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. S. G. Desai, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Vincent D'Souza, learned Counsel for the respondents.

¶16

This is an application seeking modification of the order dated 09.12.2020 which reads as follows:

¶17

'P.C.

¶18

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 22/12/2020.

¶19

2 27-mca-51-2021 in stm-3945-2019(F)

¶20

Post the matter after vacation.

¶21

In the meanwhile, there shall be interim suspension of the impugned order, dated 28/8/2018, subject to the applicant deposting 50% of the decreetal amount in four weeks.'

¶22

The record indicates that the decree which is appealed against, inter alia, had required the applicant to refund certain amounts to the respondents. According to Mr. S. G. Desai, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, this amount along with interest, comes to approximately ₹29,65,105/-. According to Mr. Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the applicant, this amount is 20 lakh or thereabout. Be that as it may, there is₹ no dispute that 50% of the decretal amount, even in terms of the calculation proposed by Mr. Mulgaonkar, has not been deposited.

¶23

The applicant had, in fact, applied for extention of time and even within the extended time, the amount has not been deposited. This means that, as of now, there is no interim suspension of the interim order. The interim suspension was subject to the applicant depositing 50% of the decretal amount in 4 weeks. Despite extension, this amount has not been deposited.

¶24

Now, this application seeking modification. The modification is that the interim suspension should continue based on the deposit of ₹7,50,000/- by the applicant.

¶25

3 27-mca-51-2021 in stm-3945-2019(F)

¶26

The reason set out in the application is that the finances of the applicant are quite stretched and despite best efforts 7,50,000/- is what the₹ applicant could manage to deposit.

¶27

As noted earlier, the decree had basically directed the applicant to refund the amount to the respondents. This means that the decree directs the applicant to only return the amounts which the applicant had received from the respondents. If the applicant claims to be stretched, then, the respondents, are bound to be overstretched. They are seeking the return of their own money and that too, based on the decree in their favour.

¶28

Therefore, no case is made out for modification of the order dated 09.12.2020. This application is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶29

M. S. SONAK, J.

¶30

msr.

Wonedulfo Antonio Da Costa v. Felvira Irene Godinho and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wonedulfo Antonio Da Costa v. Felvira Irene Godinho and 3 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

Sofia Shabnam., Vs Village Panchayat of Salvador-Do-Mundo, Rep. by Its Secretary.

Netra Sandeep Mahale Vs the President, Shri Shantadurga Devasthan, Marcela and Anr.

Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs Parasnath Singh and 6 Ors.

Wilbur Ticlo and Anr., Vs Pravinkumar Bhomchand Jain and 2 Ors.

Spark Healthline Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Duly Aut. Sign., Jyoti Badoni Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.

Spark Healthline Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Duly Aut. Sign., Jyoti Badoni Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.