Order 39 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires a clear and unequivocal admission by the defendant that it holds money as a trustee or that the amount is due; absent such admission, the court cannot order the deposit of disputed monetary claims during the pendency of a suit.

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2026 PASSED ON I.A. IN O.S.NO.25283/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE 74TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, C/C IV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-75), REJECTING THE I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 10 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This miscellaneous first appeal is directed against the order dated 06.01.2026 passed in O.S. No.25283/2023 on the file of the 74th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-75) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, 1908 seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to deposit the outstanding salary dues, came to be rejected.

Brief facts:

2. The appellant was employed in respondent No.1-company pursuant to an employment agreement dated 19.10.2015 and served as a senior managerial capacity. The appellant was first terminated on 09.08.2019, which termination was set aside by the Appellate Authority in CR No.1/2019-2020 under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (‘POSH Act’ for short), declaring the same as not just and proper. Despite such finding, the respondent failed to reinstate the appellant and to pay the arrears of salary. Subsequently, the respondent issued communication relating to reinstatement. Later, second termination notice was issued on 06.01.2023. Aggrieved, the appellant instituted O.S. No.25283/2023 seeking inter alia monetary reliefs and protection of his rights, including those arising out of the vested Employee Stock Ownership Plan.

3. Pending the suit, the appellant filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC seeking a direction to deposit a sum of `2,99,29,040/- towards outstanding salary dues for the period from 01.08.2019 to 05.01.2023. The trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected the said application.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the following grounds:

i. The Trial Court has failed to consider the pleadings and documents, and has mechanically rejected the application without proper appreciation of the material placed before it.

ii. The respondent in its written statement and correspondence has admitted the material facts, including reinstatement and continuity of employment, which establish a prima facie liability.

iii. The finding that no prima facie case is contrary to the record, inasmuch as the appellant has demonstrated a clear cause of action and supporting documents evidencing entitlement to statutory dues.

iv. The trial Court has erroneously treated the application as akin to an injunction application and applied test of prima facie case and balance of convenience, instead of examining whether the respondent holds money due or payable to the appellant.

v. The Trial Court failed to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to execute the subject matter of the suit to prevent injustice, despite the nature of the claim involving substantial monetary dues.

vi. The finding that the application is premature is unsustainable, as the power under Order XXXIX Rule 10 can be exercised at any stage, where liability is discernible from the record.

vii. The trial Court has ignored the judicial precedents relied by the appellant, which recognize the power of the Court to direct deposit or furnish security, even at an interim stage, to balance equity and secure t