Allowed

V K Fasteners Private Limited v. Ganpat Pukhraj Jain

Bombay HC11 Apr 2023COMAO/9/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed appeal against order directing deposit in commercial suit suit. Ordered appellant to deposit sum into court registry via fixed deposit. Deposit does not imply liability admission. Proceedings remanded to trial court with contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit gold deposit in fixed account. Amount invested under bank deposit form.

V K Fasteners Private Limited Vs Ganpat Pukhraj Jain — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

AMOL 906 COMAO.9.2023.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

COMMERCIAL AO NO. 9 OF 2023

¶4

V K Fasteners Private Limited ...Appellant Versus

¶5

Ganpat Pukhraj Jain ...Respondent

¶6

Mr. Mayank Bagla a/w. Mr. Swapan Samadani for appellant.

¶7

Mr. Sandeep Kekane a/w. Ms. Prachi Jain & Mr. Rishikesh Kekane for respondent.

¶8

CORAM: K.R. SHRIRAM & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ

¶9

DATED: 11^th April, 2023

¶10

PC:-

¶11

This appeal is impugning an order dated 13^th December 2002 by

¶12

which the trial court namely Adhoc Judge, Court Room NO.31, City Civil Court, Mumbai partly allowed the notice of motion taken out by respondent in

¶13

the commercial suit no. 1132 of 2021 and directed appellant to deposit a total

¶14

amount of Rs.14,89,207/-. The learned Single Judge was pleased to reject

¶15

1/3

¶16

AMOL 906 COMAO.9.2023.odt

¶17

respondent’s prayer to make appellant deposit a further sum of Rs. 23,15,527/-.

¶18

Mr. Bagla submitted that even this amount of Rs. 14,89,207/-is not payable to respondent and entire claim is disputed. However, if the court permits appellant to deposit amount of Rs. 14,89,207/- with the City Civil Court on without prejudice basis that there is no admission of liability and respondents should be directed to prove even this amount is payable by appellant, appellant is ready and willing to deposit the amount of Rs. 14,89,207/-.

¶19

Mr. Kekane for respondent stated that respondent is agreeable to suggestion, respondent will prove in the suit the entire decree claimed.

¶20

In the circumstances, we dispose the appeal as under :-

¶21

(i) Appellant to deposit the amount of Rs. 14,89,207/-with the registrar of City Civil Court, Bombay within four weeks from today.

¶22

(ii) This amount to be invested in fixed deposit with a nationalized bank for a period of thirteen months initially to be renewed for the same period unless otherwise ordered by the City Civil

¶23

2/3

¶24

AMOL 906 COMAO.9.2023.odt

¶25

Court, Bombay.

¶26

(iii) The amount is deposited does not mean appellant admits that respondent was entitled to summary decree in sum of Rs. 14,89,207/-.

¶27

All rights and contentions of parties are kept open.

¶28

Parties may apply to the learned City Civil Court Bombay for early

¶29

hearing of the matter. The court may consider the application keeping in mind its diary.

¶30

We clarify that we have not made any observations on the merits of the matter.

¶31

(RAJESH S. PATIL,J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM,J.)

¶32

3/3

V K Fasteners Private Limited v. Ganpat Pukhraj Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V K Fasteners Private Limited v. Ganpat Pukhraj Jain

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

Pagarav Chaitanya Kumar Patel Vs Rajendra Saxena and 2 Ors.

Naman Madhav Patel Vs Jetu Jaques Taru Lalwania and 4 Ors.

Pagarav Chaitanya Kumar Patel Vs Rajendra Saxena and 2 Ors.

Vishwanath Manjunath Raykar and 10 Ors. Vs Vikas Kapoor and 11 Ors.

Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai Vs Suvarna Bhaskarrao Kadam and Ors.

Metallurgical Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Government of India Thru the Secretary , Dept. of Atomic Energy