Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rashi Peripherals Private Limited vs Chodabathula Veera Satya Rama Krishna on 12 February, 2025
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.11 SECTION XII-A
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). 1529/2021
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-10-2020
in IA No. 3/2020 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amravati]
RASHI PERIPHERALS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
CHODABATHULA VEERA SATYA RAMA KRISHNA & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 12-02-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Hasan Murtaza, AOR
Mr. Amit Pai, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Saswat Pattnaik, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Raavi Yogesh Venkata, AOR
Ms. Twinkle Rathi, Adv.
Mr. Kotte Venkata Pawan Kumar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. This Special Leave Petition is against the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in I.A. No. 3 of 2020 in First Appeal No. 388 of 2019 dated 16.10.2020.
2. Pending disposal of the First Appeal, the High Court passed the interim order dated 16.07.2019 which is as under: Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by KAPIL TANDON Date: 2025.02.13
"...This application is filed, under Section 151 17:19:19 IST Reason: CPC seeking stay of further proceedings in O.S. No. 116 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional 1 District Judge, Kakinada.
Taking into consideration the submissions of the learned counsel and the averments in the accompanying affidavit and also in the Grounds of Appeal, there shall be stay of further proceedings, pursuant to the judgement and decree, dated 17-09-2018, in O.S. No. 116 of 2016, subject to the appellants-petitioners herein depositing half of the decretal amount with complete costs, within a period of eight weeks from today, and, on such deposit, the decree-holder is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has insisted on furnishing security by the respondents for doing so, having regard to the provisions of Order XLI Rule 3 CPC and the reasons assigned by the Court below, while rendering the judgement, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention."
3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application to direct the respondent no. 1 to furnish bank guarantee or immovable property security for the amount which was directed to be withdrawn by the respondent no. 1. By the order impugned before us, High Court had dismissed the application.
4. While issuing notice on 04.02.2021, this Court passed the following order:
"Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that he will deposit the entire decreetal amount before the High Court within two weeks from today. The said submission is recorded. However, if the respondent wants to withdraw 50% of the amount, he shall furnish Bank Guarantee/solvent surety to the satisfaction of the High Court.
Issue notice returnable in two weeks.
Dasti, in addition, is permitted."
5. The aforesaid order was modified by order dated 20.04.2022 2 which is as under:
"The submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that in terms of the interim order dated 04.02.2021, the petitioners have been permitted to withdraw 50 per cent of the amount on furnishing bank guarantee/solvent surety to the satisfaction of the High Court. Learned counsel submits that the respondents are prepared to furnish bank guarantee but the expenses for the same may be borne by the petitioners.
In our view, passing such an order/direction would not be appropriate. We direct that if the respondents furnish bank guarantee, they may keep an account of the expenses incurred towards furnishing of bank guarantee, which matter shall be considered at the stage of final hearing.
It is further clarified that the passing of this order would not mean that the respondents have to furnish bank guarantee alone and would be precluded from furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the High Court in lieu of the bank guarantee.
It is further submitted that the expenses which have been decreed in favour of the petitioners may be permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioners without furnishing the security. The said prayer is allowed. The petitioners are permitted to withdraw the expenses decreed in their favour without furnishing any security. It is further clarified that the balance 50% amount (which has been already deposited before the High Court) shall be kept in an interest bearing FDR account of a nationalised bank, initially for a period of six months, with auto renewal facility."
6. The interim order passed by this Court is still continuing.
7. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be subserved if we confirm the interim order dated 04.02.2021 as modified on 20.04.2022 by this Court and direct its operation till the disposal of the First Appeal before the High Court.
3
8. We would also request the High Court to endeavor to dispose of the First Appeal as expeditiously as possible.
9. With these observations, Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KAPIL TANDON) (NIDHI WASON)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
4