IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2281 OF 2003. OF MOTION NO. 2281 OF 2003. OF MOTION NO. 2281 OF 2003. IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 2430 OF 2003 NO. 2430 OF 2003 NO. 2430 OF 2003 Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. ] .. Plaintiff Versus 1. M/s.Sunlac Cable Industries & Ors. ] .. Defendant Mr.M.P. Rege i/b M.P.Rege & Co. for the plaintiff. None for defendants. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2005 P.C. : 1. Heard. The plaintiff’s suit is for recovery of money against defendant Nos.1 to 3, jointly and severally. This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the plaintiff for various reliefs. After considering the averments made in the Plaint, as well as, in the Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion, by an order dated 11th August, 2003, this Court has granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (bb), as reproduced below: "(bb) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 be ordered and directed by this : 2 : Hon’ble Court to deposit a sum of Rs.7,93,458/- being the insurance money received by the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 from the South Mumbai District Consumer Redressal Forum Mumbai City, Mumbai in Complaint No.470/1997 under the Insurance Policy bearing No.250300/91/3116521(C) on 07.08.2003 by cheque No.310064 dated 07.08.2003 drawn on Reserve Bank of India;" 2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed on the record, Affidavit of service of Mr.M.H. Gulani, Clerk of the office of the Sheriff of Bombay dated 16th September, 2005, insofar as service on defendant Nos.1 to 3 is concerned. The basic relief in the present case is only against defendants Nos.1 to 3. Defendant No.4 was duly served by letter dated 17th December, 2000, and the same has been duly acknowledged by respondent No.4’s Office as stated by the counsel appearing for the plaintiff. The plaintiff undertakes to file Affidavit of service on defendant No.4 within one week. As per the endorsement, all the envelopes have returned with postal remark "unclaimed" and if this amounts to service, the matter is proceeded with, however, subject to such endorsement by the office. 3. In the present case, the order dated 11th August, 2003, remained intact. No one carried it in Appeal. There is no counter Affidavit filed in this matter by the contesting defendant Nos.1 to 3. : 3 : Therefore, the averments made in the Plaint, as well as, in the Affidavit of support of the Notice of Motion also remained uncontroverted. The position order, as reproduced above, even though is of interim nature, demonstrates that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary that defendants 1 to 3 should deposit the amount of Rs.7,93,458/- in this Court. The learned counsel for plaintiffs makes a statement that inspite of service of this order, defendants never complied with the same and till this date, have not deposited any money inspite of directions. 4. Taking this into account, this is a fit case to confirm the ad-interim order dated 11th August, 2003, in terms of prayer clause (bb), as granted. The plaintiffs thereafter may take appropriate steps to execute the same in accordance with law. 5. So far as other reliefs are concerned, in view of grant of prayer (bb), the learned counsel is not pressing the same at this stage. In view of this, a liberty is granted. The Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (bb) and it is accordingly disposed of. . Issuance of certified copy expedited. : 4 : [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] [srpasha@hc]