16-IA-57-2024-COMFA-7-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 57 OF 2024
(FOR WITHDRAWAL OF AMOUNT)
IN
COMMERCIAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2022
Digitally
signed by
SHRADDHA
SHRADDHA KAMLESH
KAMLESH TALEKAR
TALEKAR Date:
1] Kaulgud Construction Pvt. Ltd.
2024.03.04
19:16:13
+0530 .. Applicants
& 2 Ors.
In the matter between :
Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation .. Appellant
Versus
1] Kaulgud Construction Pvt. Ltd.
& 2 Ors. …Respondents
Mr.M.L. Patil, Advocate for Applicants /Respondents.
Dr.Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Prashant
Chawan, Reshmarani Nathani, Keshav Tripathi, J. Kapadia i/b
Little & Co., Advocate for Appellant-MSRDC.
CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA &
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 29, 2024.
P C :
1. The above Interim Application is filed by the Applicants (Original
Plaintiffs) to release the amount of Rs.35,32,74,343/- deposited by the
Page 1 of 3
February 29, 2024
Shraddha Talekar, PS
16-IA-57-2024-COMFA-7-2022.doc
Appellant in this Court on such terms and conditions as this Court may
deem fit.
2. Initially, the Trial Court passed a decree in favour of the Original
Plaintiffs in the sum of Rs.22,99,07,739/- along with interest @ 12.20%
per annum [after deduction of income tax] from the date of institution of
the Suit till the judgment and thereafter @ 7% per annum till payment
and/or realization. This decree of the Trial Court is challenged in the
above Appeal by the Appellant-Maharashtra State Road Development
Corporation (“MSRDC”). It is pursuant to the orders passed by this Court
on 24th August 2022, 5th September 2022, 14th September 2022 and 18th
October 2023, respectively, that the amount of Rs.35,32,74,343/- has
been deposited by MSRDC in this Court and which the Applicants
(Original Plaintiffs) seek to withdraw.
3. We enquired from the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Applicants that if he is permitted to withdraw the amount of
Rs.35,32,74,343/-, will he be in a position to furnish a bank guarantee for
the said amount, or furnish any other adequate security to ensure that the
money can be brought back, in the event the Appeal succeeds. The
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants fairly stated that
the Applicants are not in a position to either furnish a bank guarantee or
Page 2 of 3
February 29, 2024
Shraddha Talekar, PS
16-IA-57-2024-COMFA-7-2022.doc
furnish any security. What they can furnish is only an undertaking that
they will bring back the money if the Appeal succeeds.
4. Considering the statement made by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Applicants, we are of the view that we cannot permit the
Applicants to withdraw the amount Rs.35,32,74,343/- merely on an
undertaking that in the event the Appeal succeeds, the Applicants would
bring back this amount. In these circumstances, the above Interim
Application is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
5. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal
Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or
email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. ] [ B.P. COLABAWALLA, J. ]
Page 3 of 3
February 29, 2024
Shraddha Talekar, PS