2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4602
BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BENCH AT AURANGABAD
GODAVARI INDUSTRIAL TRADERS THR ITS PARTNERS VISHNUDAS JAIKISHANJI RATHI – Appellant
Versus
BRIJMOHAN MADANLAL BANGAD AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP 1482/2022
979-WP NO.1482 OF 2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1482 OF 2022
GODAVARI INDUSTRIAL TRADERS THR. ITS PARTNERS VISHNUDAS
JAIKISHANJI RATHI AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
BRIJMOHAN MADANLAL BANGAD AND OTHERS
. . .
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. Swapnil Rathi
. . .
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATED : 16 JUNE 2022
PER COURT :
1.
The petitioners are the defendants in the summary suit, aggrieved
by the order directing them to deposit an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Two Lakhs Only) as a condition for granting leave to defend the suit.
2.
I have heard the learned advocates of both the sides extensively.
3.
At the end of arguments, the learned advocate for the petitioners
submits that there are no special reasons given by the trial court as to why a
cash has been directed to be deposited as a security in tune with the clause
6(b) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4.
Going by the nature of the dispute, the respondents/plaintiffs are
claiming to have paid various amounts to the petitioners by way of loan. The
1/2
979-WP NO.1482 OF 2022.odt
petitioners though admitted the fact about the receipt of the amounts,
according to their learned advocate, simultaneously issues regarding territorial
jurisdiction and limitations also arises. He submits that over and above, there
are documents to substantiate their stand that the respondent no.2 was in fact
participating in the petitioners’ business. Even the trial court in the order
under challenge has referred to and discussed this aspect.
6.
Learned advocate Mr. Chapalgaonkar, therefore, submits that in
the absence of any special and specific reasons, instead of a security in the
form of deposit of cash amount of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs
only), the petitioners are ready to furnish a bank guarantee of a nationalized
bank which should serve the purpose.
7.
Considering all the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the
writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is modified to the effect
that instead of depositing of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Only)
in cash the petitioners shall furnish a bank guarantee of a nationalized bank
within a period of four weeks, which should be kept alive till termination of
the lis.
( MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
Tandale/-
2/2