Bank of Baroda (Erstwhile Dena Bank),Mumbai vs Mahendra Babulal Parikh and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Bank of Baroda (Erstwhile Dena Bank),Mumbai vs Mahendra Babulal Parikh and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None on the merits; Interim Application No. 1783 of 2025 seeking stay of the ex-parte judgment and decree was rejected, and notice in the appeal was issued returnable on 18th March 2025 (service waived by respondents' counsel). The appeal itself remains pending, having been heard only on the point of admission.

Issue for consideration

Admission of the Commercial First Appeal under section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against the judgment and decree dated 22nd August 2022 directing release of shares. +1 more

Court's answer

Notice issued to the respondent in the appeal, returnable on 18th March 2025; learned counsel for the respondents appeared and waived service of notice.

Ratio / Principle

There does not appear to be any ambiguity in the impugned judgment and decree dated 22nd August 2022.

Key takeaways

No case for grant of stay is made out; Interim Application No. 1783 of 2025 is rejected.ratio¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Alok Aradhe, CJ. and Arif S. Doctor, J.) — Commercial First Appeal No. 4 of 2024 filed under section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 by Bank of Baroda (Erstwhile Dena Bank) against Mahendra Babulal Parikh & Ors., challenging the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22nd August 2022 in Commercial Suit No. 1273 of 2021, whereby the appellant was directed to release balance shares as set out in Exhibit 17 to the plaintiffs within two months, with refund of court fees under the (E) Rules framed under section 11(2) of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948: (i) the appeal was heard on the point of admission and notice was issued to the respondent, returnable on 18th March 2025, respondents' counsel waiving service; (ii) in Interim Application No. 1783 of 2025, preferred on 21st January 2025 (about two years and five months after the decree) seeking stay of the decree on the ground that it suffers from ambiguity, the Court held that there is no ambiguity in the judgment and decree and no case for grant of stay is made out; the interim application was rejected.

20-COMFA.4.2024

Jvs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

COMMERCIAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1783 OF 2025

Digitally signed by JAYANT JAYANT VISHWANATH VISHWANATH SALUNKE SALUNKE Date: 2025.02.18 20:17:22 +0530

Bank of Baroda (Erstwhile Dena Bank) } Appellant

Versus

Mahendra Babulal Parikh & Ors. } Respondents

Ms. Akshaya Puthran with Mr. Rhythm Rathod i/b. S. K. Singhi & Partners LLP for appellant.

Mr. Rohaan Cama with Mr. Anish Karande i/b. Mr.Jayant Gaikwad for respondents.

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &

ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2025

PC:

COMFA/4/2024:

1. This appeal under section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 22^nd August 2022, by which the appellant has been directed to release the shares as set out in Exhibit 17 in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs.

2. Heard on the point of admission.

3. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 18^th March 2025 .

4. Mr. Cama, learned counsel appears for the respondents and waives service of notice.

1

20-COMFA.4.2024

IA/1783/2025:

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgement and decree suffers from ambiguity and therefore, is liable to be stayed.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the judgement and decree is passed ex-parte and does not suffer from any ambiguity.

7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The aforesaid judgement and decree was passed exparte on 22^nd August 2022. The operative portion of the judgement and decree reads as under: -

“1. Commercial Suit No. 1273 of 2021 is partly decreed with costs.

2. Defendant is directed to release balance shares as set out in Exh. 17 to plaintiffs within two months from today.

3. Court fees be refunded as per (E) Rules framed under section 11(2) of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, for the refund of Institution Fee.

4. Decree thus follow” .

8. It is pertinent to note that the impugned judgement and decree was passed on 22^nd August 2022, whereas the instant application was preferred on 21^st January 2025. There does not appear to be any ambiguity in the judgement and decree. In our considered opinion, no case for grant of stay is made out.

9. Accordingly, the interim application is rejected.

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

2