bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.959 OF 2009 PETITION NO.959 OF 2009 PETITION NO.959 OF 2009 Hemant Vitthal Kulkarni ..Petitioner Vs. Mr.Ashok Anant Sabnis & Anr. ..Respondents Mr.D.M.Gupte for the Petitioner. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- V.C.DAGA,J. :- V.C.DAGA,J. :- V.C.DAGA,J. DATE DATE DATE : 3RD FEBRUARY, 2009 : 3RD FEBRUARY, 2009 : 3RD FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Perused petition. 2. After having gone through the record, I am of the considered view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order especially in the background in which the stay was granted. 3. The factual matrix reveals that by an order dated 23rd September, 2008, the District Judge-IV was pleased to grant stay of execution proceedings subject to the petitioner depositing 30% of the amount awarded in the Arbitration Award amounting to Rs.14,39,625/- within eight days from 23th September, 2008. 4. The petitioner did not deposit within time frame. He has deposited an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- on 30th September, 2008, Rs.30,000/- on 15th October, 2008, Rs.10,000/- on 15th November, 2008 and :2: Rs.23,000/- on 26th November, 2008. This would show, that the petitioner has not complied with the conditional order of stay. He went on depositing the amount as if he was directed to deposit in monthly instalments. As a matter of fact much indulgence was shown by the Court below by accepting the aforesaid amount in instalment and ultimately refused to extend period for deposit considering the non compliance of the conditional order. 5. In the above view of the matter, no fault can be found in the impugned order. The petition stands dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)