The discretionary power to stay execution of a money decree should be exercised in appropriate cases, and the satisfaction of a money decree does not amount to substantial loss or irreparable injury, with the remedy of restitution available to the successful party.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

CM 27761/2016 (Stay)

1. The present application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the Code’) essentially seeks stay of execution of the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2016 impugned in the accompanying appeal.

2. By way of order of even date the trial court disposed of an application under Order 37 Rule 3(5) of the Code filed on behalf of the appellant- Unity Infraprojects Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Unity’). The said application was instituted on behalf of Unity in a suit being CS No.69/2016 instituted on behalf of the respondent- Neptune Systems Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Neptune’), against the former for recovery of Rs.81,97,448/- along with pendente lite and future interest.

3. The facts as are necessary for the determination of the present application are as follows:-

(i) Neptune is in the business of manufacturing of various electrical technologies and is stated to be a well renowned company with tremendous experience in the business.

(ii) Unity is a public limited company and principally operates as a civil contractor in the area of buildings & housing, transportation, water supply and irrigation.

(iii) Unity was awarded a contract for construction of a hospital building, academic block and student’s hostel with associated services under Phase-I for comprehensive redevelopment plan for Lady Hardinge Medical College & Associated Hospital at Connaught Place, New Delhi.

(iv) Unity in turn, admittedly, issued a Letter of Intent dated 08.02.2013 in favour of Neptune for supply of Meter Board and Distribution Board.

(v) It is further an admitted position that Neptune supplied the requisite goods through several tax/retail invoices containing details of the goods during the financial year 2013-14 on credit basis to Unity.

(vi) Admittedly, Unity furnished Form-C to Neptune against the said invoices.

(vii) According to Neptune a sum of Rs.91,97,364/- was payable to it, for goods sold and delivered to Unity, who kept deferring payment thereof on one pretext or the other.

(viii) Eventually, post dated cheques were issued by Unity in favour of Neptune duly signed by the Chairman. The details of the said cheques are as follows:-

(ix) It is also an admitted position that upon presentation, Cheque No.156256 dated 10.05.2014 was dishonoured by the payee bank on account of “insufficient funds”.

4. The dispute raised on behalf of Unity in the present appeal is in relation to a letter dated 29.05.2014, whereby, Unity purportedly requested Neptune not to deposit the cheques given to the latter towards payment for goods till further instructions, on the assertion that the former, due to internal reasons, could not prevent dishonour of the said Cheque No.156256 dated 10.05.2014 and also extending an apology in that behalf.

5. The entire defence of the appellant is predicated on the assertion that the said letter dated 29.05.2014 is a forgery and has been fabricated by Neptune.

6. It would be pertinent to observe at this stage, that the underlying transaction between the parties resting with the delivery of the subject goods, issuance of the subject cheques and Form-C, as aforesaid, has been unequivocally admitted by Unity.

7. Mr Jawahar Raja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously urged that in view of their assertion that the disputed letter dated 29.05.2014 was a forgery, Unity was entitled to grant of unconditional leave to defend the said suit bearing CS No.69/2016

8. Mr Raja, learned counsel, invites my attention to paragraph 8 of the judgment an