Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Maharashtra Small Scale Industries ... vs Snehadeep Structures Pvt. Ltd. on 9 January, 2015
Bench: Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).36719-36720/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/11/2014
in NOML No.1213/2013, NOML No. 2545/2014, APL No.260/2013 and ABP
No. 499/2003 passed by the High Court of Bombay)
MAHARASHTRA SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SNEHADEEP STRUCTURES PVT. LTD. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned
judgment and interim relief and office report)
Date : 09/01/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.K. Dholakia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pramit Saxena, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The petitioner had suffered an award dated 30.06.2003. Without entering into the chequered history of the litigation, suffice it to say, he moved Notice of Motion (L) No.1213 of 2013 in Appeal (L) No.260 of 2013 in Arbitration Petition No.499 of 2003 seeking stay/implementation, execution and operation of the judgment and order dated 03.05.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay. The Division Bench on 13.10.2014 issued the following directions :
Signature Not Verified“3. In the meantime, having regard to the fact Digitally signed by that the appellant is a Public Undertaking and Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2015.01.19 13:11:25 IST requires funds for payment of salary to its Reason:
staff, we direct that the attachment levied as per he order in the execution proceedings shall be raised subject to the following conditions :2
(i) The appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs) with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court and the respondent – Snehdeep Structures Pvt. Ltd. Shall be permitted to withdraw the same without furnishng security.
(ii) The amount of Rs.36,81,279/- lying with the Protohnotary and Senior Master by way of interest on the amount deposited earlier, as stated by the Learned Counsel for the appellant, shall also be permitted to be withdraw by the respondent without furnishing any security.
(iii) The amount of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs) as aforesaid shall be deposited by 16 October, 2014.
It is clarified that it is an ad-interim arrangement and the learned counsel for the respondent states that if the appellant complies with the above conditions, respondent will not take any further action against the appellant till the next date i.e. 28 October, 2014.” As the factual narration would reveal, on 7.10.2014, there was an attachment of Bank account of the petitioner with SBI CAG Branch Ballard Estate, Mumbai for Rs.1,57,55,948.85/- issued by the Prothonatory and Senior Master High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
The matter came up on 10.10.2014 and the Division, Bench on that day, directed as follows :
“The Applicant-Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Shall place on record a statement of calculations on the basis of arbitral Award dated 30 June, 2003, the operative part of which reads as under :
'(A) The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant a sum of Rs.78,19,540.73 (Rupees seventy-eight lacs nineteen thousand five hundred forty and paise seventy-three only) as per the claim in Annexure'L' to the State of Claim.
(B) The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant simple interest on the said amount 3 at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the Statement of Claim till the date of Award and future interest at the same rate from the date of the Award till payment and/or realization.
(C) In case the Respondent fails to pay the amount awarded within three months from today, the respondent would be liable to pay to the Claimant compounded interest with monthly rests at 1-½ times of Prime Lending Rate charged by the State Bank of India from the date of the claim until payment and/or realization.'
2. While calculating the amount, the Corporation shall prepared two statements. One statement shall be as per the aforesaid Award of the Arbitrator. The second statement shall provide calculations of the principal amount with compounded interest with monthly rests at the Prime Lending Rate charged by State Bank of India from the date of the Award till the date of deposit of the amounts by the appellant on 30 March, 2010 and 10 December, 2010 for the respective amounts and further interest at the Prime Lending Rate on the balance amount remaining outstanding on10 December, 2012 after adjusting the amount deposited by the applicant.” Thereafter, the petitioners moved Notice of Motion (L) No.1213 of 2013 in Appeal (L) No.260 of 2013 in Arbitration Petition No.499 of 2003 praying for directing the respondents to deposit an amount of Rs.1,40,13,045/- withdrawn by them from the court on 29.10.2013 and to keep the said amount deposited in court till the disposal of appeal or in the alternative to direct the respondents to furnish security for amount of Rs.1,40,13,045/- withdrawn by the respondents from Court to the satisfaction of the Court; and to restrain the respondents from withdrawing the balance amount of Rs.36,81,279/- deposited before the Court till the disposal of the appeal.
The Court passed the interim order which is as follows :
“11. Accordingly, by this interim order we direct as under :
(a) Appellant-Corporation shall deposit the aforesaid balance amount of Rs.76,96,000 within six months from today in six equal monthly installments. Further interest at the same rate 4 (i.e. interest at Prime Landing Rate of SBI compounded with quarterly rests) from 1 December, 2014 till the date of the payment, shall be deposited as the seventh installment by 30 June 2015. The first installment shall be paid by 31 December 2014 and subsequent monthly installments shall be deposited by the last day of each calendar month.
(b) Upon deposit of such balance amount in accordance with the above direction, the attachment on the bank account of the Appellant-Corporation shall be raised.
(c) In case, the Appellant-Corporation is desirous of getting the attachment raised earlier, an undertaking on affidavit shall be filed by the Chairman of the Appellant-Corporation with this Court for payment of aforesaid balance amount within the aforesaid stipulated time limit in six equal monthly installments plus interest as the seventh installment. If such an undertaking is filed, a copy thereof shall also be served upon the learned counsel for the Respondent-Claimant. The attachment shall then be raised within three working days from the date of filing of the undertaking.
(d) Upon deposit of the amounts, the Prothonotary and Senior Master shall invest the same in short term deposits with a Nationalised Bank.
(e) It is clarified that during subsistence of the attachment, the Appellant-Corporation shall be permitted by the State Bank of India to operate its bank account only for the purpose of making the deposits in this Court in accordance with the above directions. Once the attachment is raised upon compliance with either of the above directions, thereafter it will be open to the appellant-Corporation to operate its bank account, keeping in mind its obligations under the above directions.” Thereafter, the Court proceeded to state :
“12. Notice of Motion (L) No.1213 of 2013 is disposed of in the above terms.5
13. In view of the above directions, Notice of Motion (L) 2545 of 2014, seeking a direction to the Respondent-Claimant to redeposit the amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/- and add withdrawn by them in October 2013 or to furnish security does not deserve to be entertained. The Notice of Motion is accordingly dismissed.” It is submitted by Mr. Dholakia, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the High Court should not have direct for deposit of Rs.76,96,000/- (Rupees seventy six lacs and ninety six thousands only) on the application filed by the petitioner with a different prayer. It is also urged, if the said amount is not secured, there is likelihood of non-recovery of the said amount. Regard being had to the same, we are only inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to file an application for directing the respondent to furnish security for withdrawal of Rs.76,96,000/- (Rupees seventy six lacs and ninety six thousand only) before the High Court so that the money is protected.
It is also submitted by Mr. Dholakia that if the petitioner-Corporation is not allowed to operate its accounts, there will be standstill in the affairs of the Corporation. As we have granted liberty to the petitioner to move the High Court, we permit the Corporation to operate the account in presenti subject to the petitioner filing an application for modification of the order of the High Court as regards furnishing of security of Rs.76,96,000/- (Rupees seventy six lacs and ninety six thousand only) within 10 days hence. We also request the High Court to dispose of the same within four weeks from the date of filing.
As the lis has been continuing for long, we request the High Court to dispose of the main appeal within a period of four months. The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master