Skip to content


Mehta Teja Singh and Company Vs. Grindlays Bank Limited - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 648 of 1980
Judge
Reported in(1982)3SCC199
ActsCode Of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 43 Rule 1, Order 41 Rule 5, Order 21 Rule 30
AppellantMehta Teja Singh and Company
RespondentGrindlays Bank Limited
Excerpt:
- [ y.v. chandrachud, c.j.,; e.s. venkataramiah and; d.a. desai, jj.] - practice and procedure — special leave granted against interlocutory order of high court granting stay of a money decree — respondent directed to deposit balance of decretal amount — cpc, 1908, order 43, rule 1; order 41, rule 5 and order 21, rule 30 -- we, however, find it somewhat difficult to appreciate that the high court should have granted stay of a money decree, and that too, by requiring the appellant before it (respondent herein) — grindlays bank ltd. — to deposit only a part of the decretal amount. mr sorabji agrees to serve a copy of this order on the respondent as also on the respondent's advocate in the high court......heard counsel. special leave granted.2. it is true that the appeal is directed against an order passed by the high court, which is of an interlocutory nature. we, however, find it somewhat difficult to appreciate that the high court should have granted stay of a money decree, and that too, by requiring the appellant before it (respondent herein) — grindlays bank ltd. — to deposit only a part of the decretal amount. we, therefore, direct that the respondent shall deposit in the high court, within four weeks from today, the balance of the decretal amount which we are told is about rs 1,10,000 (rupees one lakh and ten thousand). the appellant — m/s mehta teja singh and co. will be at liberty to withdraw the said amount on furnishing bank guarantee to the satisfaction of.....
Judgment:

Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.,; E.S. Venkataramiah and; D.A. Desai, JJ.

1. Heard counsel. Special leave granted.

2. It is true that the appeal is directed against an order passed by the High Court, which is of an interlocutory nature. We, however, find it somewhat difficult to appreciate that the High Court should have granted stay of a money decree, and that too, by requiring the appellant before it (respondent herein) — Grindlays Bank Ltd. — to deposit only a part of the decretal amount. We, therefore, direct that the respondent shall deposit in the High Court, within four weeks from today, the balance of the decretal amount which we are told is about Rs 1,10,000 (Rupees one lakh and ten thousand). The appellant — M/s Mehta Teja Singh and Co. will be at liberty to withdraw the said amount on furnishing Bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary of the High Court.

3. We must mention that no notice was given to the respondent of this matter and Mr Sorabji, appearing on behalf of the appellant, draw our attention pointedly to this fact. We do not, however, think that the respondent is likely to object to the order which we have passed. If the respondent feels aggrieved by the order, it will be at liberty to apply to us for its reconsideration.

4. Mr Sorabji agrees to serve a copy of this Order on the respondent as also on the respondent's advocate in the High Court.

5. The appeal shall stand disposed of in terms of this order.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //