1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.47/1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.VB Anjanwatikar, Adv. h/for Mr. VD Hon, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 19 th November, 2010. ... 1) On 16.11.2000 it was informed that Mr. CG Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the appellant is not practicing at Aurangabad and consequently the appellant was to make arrangement. To enable such situation, the matter came to be adjourned by issuing notice to the appellant, however, the appellant has not turned nor taken any steps. 2) The matter revolves to seeking injunction, refraining the respondent/sugar factory from lifting or moving and selling Free-sale quota sugar lying in the godown of the sugar factory without previous permission of the Court. The injunction application was rejected. 3) On reading the order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division below 2 Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit No. 171/1997, I find that the purchase order was for one lakh bags of sugar @ Rs. 32.50 ps. per bag with terms set out therein. An amount of Rs.6,66,000/- was paid and balance was confirmed. The defendant/sugar factory asserted that unless the total amount is deposited, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the amount. The matter revolves to recovery. 4) The position of law in respect of grant of injunction is substantially explained by the Apex Court in the matter of Seema Arshad Zaheer and Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors., reported in 2006(5) Mah.L.J. 218. The parameters indicated therein will illustrate that there was no error on the part of the learned Judge in rejecting the injunction application (Exhibit-5) by order dated 3rd May, 1997. 5) In the result, AO dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/