: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. 808 OF 2007 SUMMONS NO. 808 OF 2007 SUMMONS NO. 808 OF 2007 IN IN IN EXECUTION EXECUTION EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 183 OF 2007 APPLICATION (L) NO. 183 OF 2007 APPLICATION (L) NO. 183 OF 2007 IN IN IN AWARD AWARD AWARD DATED 30TH JUNE 2006 DATED 30TH JUNE 2006 DATED 30TH JUNE 2006 L & T Finance Ltd. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. M/s. Edco India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ... Defendants. Ms. S.I. Joshi for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 20TH 20TH 20TH MARCH 2009. MARCH 2009. MARCH 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Affidavit proving publication of the Notice and Order dated 24th August 2007 is taken on record. 2. It is stated that the Defendants are indebted to the Plaintiffs in the sum of Rs.27,56,098/- with further interest on the principal sum from 30th April 2002. It is pointed out that the Award was made on 30th June 2006 directing the payment of the above sums. The decretal amount with interest would be to the tune of nearly Rs.35,00,000/-. There are other Awards made against this very party. The Judgment Debtors have not honoured them. Either the Judgment Debtors do not accept service and force the Plaintiff to seek substituted service or they do not appear despite being served. Thereby, they are delaying payment and trying to defeat the Award. Certain rights are created in favour of the Plaintiffs by virtue of the Award which has become final. :2: 3. It is pointed out that although the Defendants were directed to file an affidavit under Order XXI Rule 41 of the C.P.C., they have not done so. 4. In my view, despite service of notice, none of the statements made in the affidavit in support and highlighted during the course of the arguments are disputed or denied. The Defendants are trying to defeat the rights of the Plaintiffs by delaying the execution of the Award. The Award has been made on 30th June 2006 but the liability is from 2002 onwards. In these circumstances, a case is made out for grant of further relief on this Chamber Summons. The Chamber Summons is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (d). Liberty to apply for further reliefs and more particularly, in terms of prayer clause (e). 5. Considering the facts that the direction under Order XXI Rule 41 of C.P.C. has not been obeyed and the affidavit has not been filed within the time specified by this Court, it would be desirable and in the interest of justice to call upon the Judgment Debtors through Mr. S. Dayanand, who is the Director and Guarantor to remain present and show cause as to why an order in terms of prayer clause (f) of the Chamber Summons be not made, directing their detention in Civil Prison. Notice made returnable after Eight weeks. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)