SRJ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.594 OF 2002 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.173 OF 2002 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1395 OF 2001 A/W. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.450 OF 2002 Vijay Tanks & Vessels Ltd. .. Plaintiff V/s. Geekay Exim (India) Ltd., .. Defendants. Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin with Krishnayan Sen, Ms. Amodi Borkar i/b. Bharucha & Partners, for Plaintiff. CORAM: R.S.MOHITE, J. DATED: 9TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.: 1. This Chamber Summons was taken out by the Plaintiff seeking attachment of sum of Rs.13 crores being the balance consideration remaining with the Respondent s Bank for purchase of property belonging to the Defendant and the prayer thereon was made absolute by an order passed by this Court on 23rd August, 2002. 2. One of the grievance of the Appellant was that the Defendant should have led the oral and documentary evidence SRJ 2 before the Hon ble Court and that the said documentary evidence was necessary to prove that the various companies were involved in the affairs of the Respondents were from one group. The Plaintiff who were Respondents in the Appeal had given their no objection to the matter being remitted back to the learned Single Judge so that parties can get an opportunity to lead the evidence. In the circumstances, appeal was disposed of by the Court s order dated 24 th February, 2009. Operative part of the Order which reads as follows:- (i) The order impugned in the appeal, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Chamber Summons No.594 of 2002 is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for de novo trial and hearing and disposal in accordance with law. (ii) The learned Single Judge is requested to afford an opportunity to lead evidence to both the parties, if they so apply. (iii) The Prothonotary and Senior Master shall permit the respondent Vijay Tanks and Vessels Ltd., to withdraw the amount which has been deposited in this Court, referred to above, with accruals, on their furnishing an SRJ 3 undertaking to this Court to bring back the amount if so directed by this Court and on such terms and conditions as may be directed by this Court and on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court. (iv) It is noted that the Prothonotary and Senior Master will not accept any security furnished by the respondent Vijay Tanks Vessels Ltd. without granting an opportunity of being heard to the appellants. The Prothonotary and Senior Master shall permit the respondents to withdraw the said amount with accruals, if any. The withdrawal shall be permitted within a period of six weeks from today. If the amount is not withdrawn within the aforesaid period as directed above, the amount shall lie in deposit as invested during the pendency of the Chamber Summons. 3. It appears that after the matter was remitted back as aforesaid, the Chamber Summons has appeared before the Single Judge on several occasions and on each of the occasions, Defendants have chosen to remain absent. It appears that the Respondents have also remained absent. On SRJ 4 16th November, 2009, this court had recorded that the Defendants were absent and observed that the parties to frame issues so that the evidence can be recorded and the parties were also directed to consider whether the Commissioner can be appointed. Matter was again taken on 10th March, 2010 when it was observed that the Division Bench had directed that an opportunity should be given to lead evidence to both the parties, if they so apply. It was further recorded that the Defendants and their counsels had remained absent on number of occasions and had not made any application to lead the evidence. Again on 25th March, 2010, Defendants and Respondents are absent. The Plaintiffs were called upon to state whether they wanted to adduce any evidence. Defendants and the Respondents have failed to appear after the Order of Division Bench dated 24th February, 2009. In my view, the Chamber Summons cannot be kept pending indefinitely. 4. I have perused the order dated 24th February, 2009 of the Division Bench, which indicates that the Division Bench has not made any observations on the merits of the Chamber Summons as decided by the learned Single Judge while hearing order dated 23rd August, 2002. Since there is no further material which is before this Court, in my view, for the reasons that had been mentioned in the order dated 23rd SRJ 5 August, 2002 and which on perusal are found proper, the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and stands disposed off with no order as to costs. 5. The security, if furnished, in accordance with the clause-III of paragraph 5 of the Appeal, Court Order stands discharged. (R.S.MOHITE, J.)