1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7568 OF 2009 Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Plot No.D-10, Road No.33, Wagle Estate, Indira Nagar, Thane. Petitioner Versus 1 M/s Tandulwadikar Agro Tech Pvt.Ltd., 1-2-193, “Shrinivas”, Shivaji Nagar, through its partner - Mukund Wamanrao Tandulwadikar, age: major, Occ: Business, R/o Nanded, Tq. & District Nanded. 2 The Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg, through its Chief Executive Officer, Tq. And District Aurangabad. Respondents Mr.A.R.Borulkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Kadethankar, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.G.P.Shinde, advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 21 st July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 This writ petition is preferred by the Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd, who is original defendant no.2 in Special Civil Suit No.10/2002. The said Civil Suit has been decreed by the trial 2 Court on 01.03.2008 and present petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,45,093/- within a period of two months along with future interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the principal amount. The petitioner – Corporation preferred an appeal, being Regular Civil Appeal No.37/2008. In the said appeal, an application for stay of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was filed. The appellate Court has rejected the said application by its order dated 21.02.2009, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2 The notice in this writ petition was issued on 17.11.2009. In response to the said notice, learned Counsel Shri A.B.Kadethankar appears for Respondent No.1, whereas, learned Counsel Shri G.P.Shinde appears for Respondent No.2. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that the matter can be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 3 The trial Court has recorded a finding that there was no transaction entered into between plaintiff and original defendant no.1 – Zilla Parishad. The petitioner, who was defendant no.2, was the agent and terms and conditions of contract were between plaintiff and defendant no.2. Upon consideration of clauses of contract, decree has been passed only against the petitioner, who is original defendant no.2. 4 Shri Borulkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the goods were supplied to Zilla Parishad, who is original defendant no.1 and, therefore, decree could have been passed against defendant no.1. He further submits that a Civil Suit has also been filed by the present petitioner against plaintiff and defendant no.1 for recovery of the amount. He has urged that taking into consideration all these aspects, the appellate Court 3 ought to have stayed the decree passed by the trial Court. 5 It seems that after rejection of the application for stay, the petitioner had applied for grant of one month’s time to deposit the amount on 14.08.2009 in Execution Petition No.09/2009. Even prior to that on 24.07.2009, one month’s time was sought for deposit of the amount. Although, initially time was granted till 14.08.2009, subsequently the application was rejected by order dated 14.08.2009. The appellate Court has considered the decree passed by the trial Court and has refused to stay execution of the said decree. The reasons are recorded for rejection of stay application. Taking review of all these events, I do not find any substance in the instant petition. 6 Writ Petition, therefore, stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. If the petitioner wants to deposit the decretal amount in the Court, two weeks’ time is granted. If the decretal amount is not deposited within two weeks, the decree shall be executed. (R. K. DESHPANDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp7568.09