:1: 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 CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1522 OF 2006 SUMMONS NO. 1522 OF 2006 SUMMONS NO. 1522 OF 2006 IN IN IN NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NO. 1845 OF 2004 NO. 1845 OF 2004 NO. 1845 OF 2004 IN IN IN EXECUTION EXECUTION EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 471 OF 2004 APPLICATION NO. 471 OF 2004 APPLICATION NO. 471 OF 2004 IN IN IN RECOVERY RECOVERY RECOVERY CERTIFICATE APPLN.NO.A.R.DEP.101/648/1997 CERTIFICATE APPLN.NO.A.R.DEP.101/648/1997 CERTIFICATE APPLN.NO.A.R.DEP.101/648/1997 The Greater Mumbai Co-op Bank. ...Applicant V/s. M/s. Satguru Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. P.Das i/b. Goenka Law Associates for the Applicant. Mr. Deepak Chitnis for the Respondents. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 30TH 30TH 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008. SEPTEMBER 2008. SEPTEMBER 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . This Chamber Summons was placed yesterday and an objection was raised by Shri Chitnis appearing for the Respondents to the maintainability of the same. 2. According to his contentions, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the Execution Application in which this Chamber Summons is moved is itself not maintainable in this Court. He relied upon the order passed on 26th February 2007 in Appeal No.1362 of 2007 in Notice No.1567 of 2005. :2: 3. He has invited my attention to the observations of the Division Bench in paragraph 9 to 12 onwards and has contended that while allowing the Appeal, the Division Bench has held that the Execution Application itself was not maintainable before this Court. In para 10 it is held that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted. 4. Further, he has relied upon an order made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition on 14th May 2007 dismissing the appeal against this order. 5. It is contended that once the Execution Application itself is not maintainable before this Court then any application therein and more particularly, seeking reliefs in the present Chamber Summons is not maintainable. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant - Bank does not dispute the fact that the Appeal before the Division Bench was allowed and that the Applicant was not successful before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. Having perused the Judgment and Order of the Division Bench and that of the Supreme Court so also the reliefs claimed in the Chamber Summons, I am of the view that the present Chamber Summons is not maintainable before this Court. Having held that the Execution Application itself does not lie in the Civil Court and the remedy of the Applicant/Bank to enforce and execute the :3: certificate/award lies elsewhere, it is not possible to agree with the Applicant’s Advocate that the present Chamber Summons would be maintainable. 8. There is much substance in the contention of Shri Chitnis. For the reasons recorded by the Division Bench in the Appeal it is held that this Chamber Summons is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that the Chamber Summons is disposed of only on the ground of maintainability and no opinion is expressed as far as the reliefs claimed therein. All contentions, in so far as the reliefs are concerned, they are kept open. 9. The Chamber Summons is dismissed as not maintainable. 10. No order as to costs. -----