Gujarat High Court High Court

Jindal vs R on 13 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Jindal vs R on 13 April, 2010
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/4560/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4560 of 2010
 

 


 

=========================================================

 

JINDAL
HOME TEX(INDIA) PVT LTD & 2 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

R
K FABRICS SUBHASH COLONY - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
HASIT DILIP DAVE for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3. 
None for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 13/04/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

The
petitioners herein-original defendants are before this Court being
aggrieved by the order passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad,
dated 19.03.2010, whereby the permission sought to furnish bank
guarantee instead of depositing the decretal amount, is declined.

Learned
advocate Mr.Hasit Dilip Dave for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioners are businessmen and there is nothing on record to show
that the petitioners will not be able to pay amount at a later stage,
and therefore, the Court below ought to have granted permission to
furnish bank guarantee in place of deposit of amount of the decree.

2. The
learned advocate in this regard relied upon a decision of the
Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Sihor Nagar Palika
Bureau Vs. Bhabhlubhai Virabhai, reported in
(2005) 4 SCC 1, particularly the observations made in para 8
thereof.

The
learned advocate also relied upon yet another decision of the Hon’ble
the Apex Court in the matter of Central Bank of India Vs. State
of Gujarat, reported in 1987 (2) GLH 311.

3. Having
perused the aforesaid judgements and taking into consideration the
facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the
above decisions have no application to the facts of the present case.
The order passed by the court below is nothing but an
exercise of discretion’ which is found to be just. There is no reason
which will warrant an interference at the hands of this Court. Having
found no merits, the petition is dismissed.

(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)

karim

   

Top