Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/8419/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR STAY No. 8419 of 2010
In
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2179 of 2010
=========================================================
INLAND
ROAD TRANSPORT (PVT) LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CADILA
HEALTHCARE LIMITED - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
ROOPAL R PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
SINGHI &
CO for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE B.M.TRIVEDI
Date
: 18/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
1. The
present application is for interim injunction pending the first
appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in
Civil Suit No. 2115/2003.
2. We
have heard Ms. Roopal Patel learned counsel for the applicant-
original defendant and Ms. Amruta Thakor learned counsel for the
respondent – original plaintiff.
3. Considering
the facts and circumstances, there shall be interim injunction
against the execution and implementation of the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court on condition that the applicant shall
deposit the entire decreetal amount together with costs and interest
in the trial Court within a period of six weeks from today. It is
also observed that the applicant shall be entitled for the set-of of
the amount already deposited pending the suit and the remaining
amount shall be required to be deposited.
4. We
have heard learned counsel for both the sides on the aspect of
withdrawal of the amount.
5. As
such it is money decree and upon furnishing the security, one may be
entitled for withdrawal of the amount. However, the apprehension
voiced by the applicant – appellant is that if the company is
not financially sound, it will be difficult for the applicant-
appellant to recover the amount and it was also submitted that there
are various contentions including that the court had no jurisdiction
or that there was no liability on the part of the applicant –
appellant – original defendant.
6. Hence,
considering the facts and circumstances, we find that it would be
just and proper if bank guarantee is furnished by the respondent –
original plaintiff against the withdrawal of the amount. When the
bank guarantee is to be furnished, the applicant – appellant
will be in a position to recover the amount back in the event it
succeeds in the present appeal.
7. Hence,
it is observed and directed that the respondent – original
plaintiff shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount which may be
deposited by the applicant – appellant – original
defendant, upon furnishing bank guarantee which will be valid for a
period of three years and the bank guarantee shall be renewed from
time to time until the first appeal is finally heard and disposed.
8. The
application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute
accordingly.
9. Considering
the facts and circumstances, the First Appeal shall be listed for
final hearing on 14.7.2011.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
(MS.
B.M. TRIVEDI, J.)
mandora/
Top