1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.627 OF 2009 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 255 OF 2004 IN AWARD DATED 11th DECEMBER, 2003 M/s. Ahuja Films .. Complainants Vs M/s. Kamna Arts .. Respondents Mr. Kishore Jain with Ms. Mamta A. Shah for the Applicants Ms. Seema Gupta i/b Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi for Respondents CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J DATE : 20th APRIL, 2009. P.C.: 1. An award was passed against the Applicant which was put in execution. Consent Terms were arrived at between the parties under which the Applicant herein paid to the Respondent an amount of Rs. 5 lacs, While the balance was to be paid in the manner indicated in Clause (5) to the Consent Terms. There was a default on the part of the Applicant in paying the installments and a Chamber Summons was taken out for Rma CHS62709200409.sxw 2 extension of time. 2. On 20th January, 2009, Mr. Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari while disposing of Chamber Summons 1911 of 2008 observed that the Chamber Summons was liable to be dismissed but an undertaking had been tendered on behalf of the Applicant by its sole proprietor that a sum of Rs. 3.5 Lakhs would be paid on or before 7th February, 2009 while the balance in terms of clause 5 (b) of the Consent Terms would be paid on or before 20th February, 2009. The undertaking was accepted and in the interests of justice, time was extended for payment in terms of clause 5(b) until 20th February 2009. It was observed that no further extension of time would be granted and in the event of any default in making payment, it shall be construed as a willful breach of undertaking given to the Court resulting in initiation of Contempt proceedings. 3. A fresh Chamber Summons has now been taken out for a Rma CHS62709200409.sxw 3 further extension of time of six months and / or until the release of the film. The Chamber Summons is throughly misconceived for more than one reason. First and foremost, under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 11 of Order 20 of the CPC, upon the passing of a decree for the payment of money, the Court is empowered on the application of the judgment debtor and with the consent of the decree-holder to order that the payment of the amount decreed shall be postponed or shall be made by installments. In the present case, in the absence of the consent of the decree holder, it will not be open to the Court to exercise powers under Order 20, Rule 11. 4. Secondly, even in the earlier Chamber Summons, the learned Judge observed that it was liable to be dismissed but time was granted on an undertaking tendered by the sole proprietor of the Applicant who was present in the Court. The undertaking has been breached. It was observed that no further Rma CHS62709200409.sxw 4 extension of time would be granted, as a default would result in initiation of Contempt proceedings in addition to the decree being rendered executable. 5. For these reasons, the Chamber Summons is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. 6. However, prima facie it appears that the Applicant to the affidavit in support of Chamber Summons, Mr. J.M. Nirula has committed a willful breach of the undertaking that was tendered this Court on 20th January 2009. A prima facie case for initiation of Contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 has been made out. The office is directed to issue a notice to Mr. J.M. Narula to show cause as to why he should not be made answerable in the exercise of the Contempt Jurisdiction of this Court. 6. The notice shall be returnable after four weeks. Rma CHS62709200409.sxw 5 (DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J) Rma CHS62709200409.sxw