1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. Chamber Summons No.1173 of 2008 IN Execution Application(L) No.305 of 2008 IN Arbitration Petition Nio.155 of 2002 IN Award No.2 of 2002 Sharanpal B. Chopra. .. .. Applicant (Orig. Respondent) v/s. Satinderpal Singh Anand .. Respondent (Orig. Petitioner) Mr.K. Setalwad i/by Nanu Hormasjee & co. for Applicant. Mr.R.S. Tripathi for Respondent. ---- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 30th August, 2008 P.C. : 1.This Chamber Summons was initially moved for ad-interim reliefs on 17.9.2008 by the Applicant with notice to the Respondent. Various questions of law came to be agitated. They have been considered in the order passed on 21st August 2008 which need not be repeated. 2.The Respondent was directed to file an Affidavit-in-reply on facts, if he required or desired. The Chamber Summons was thereafter made returnable and adjourned. The Respondent 2 has filed his Affidavit-in-reply. The Applicant proceeds on the basis of denials. 3.It is now further contended by the Respondent that the deposit came to be made by the Applicant pending the stay of the decree being passed in terms of the Award in this case. He, therefore, challenges the act of deposit in the Chamber Summons. As per the Award and as per the decree passed in terms of the Award, the Applicant was to make payment of the consideration for the flat. Upon such payment being made, the Respondent had to hand over possession of the flat. The Applicant has deposited the amount of consideration as per the decree passed in terms of the Award and modified by the Division Bench of this Court. The deposit would be used for the benefit of the Respondent. The Respondent would be entitled to withdraw the amount of deposit constituting consideration for the disputed flat. 4.It is not known why the Respondent challenges the fact of the deposit being made. The Respondent has not shown any prejudice that he has suffered therefrom. He has not shown how the amount deposited is less than the amount required to be deposited. He has not made any calculation with regard to the amount of interest payable by the Applicant. 3 He was allowed to file his Affidavit-in-reply precisely for such purpose so that before handing over the keys of the suit flat which came to be deposited by the Respondent in the Court at the time of the consideration of the ad-interim reliefs, the part of the decree, which had to be performed by the Applicant for the benefit of the Respondent, would be seen and satisfied. That having not been done, the dispute raised with regard to the deposit made by the Applicant is seen to be completely lacking the bonafides. 5.All the other contentions raised by the Respondent in the Affidavit-in-reply have been raised and considered in the ad- interim order. 6.It is seen that the Applicant has complied with the requirements of the Award which were to be complied by him. The execution of the decree in terms of the Award, as modified by the Division Bench, has been allowed to be under Section 51(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. No further formalities need be complied in execution. Hence, the following order:- ORDER The Applicant shall be handed over the keys which 4 have been deposited with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court pursuant to the order dated 21st August 2008. Upon such keys being handed over, the Respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited to the credit of this Award. 7.This order is stayed for two weeks. [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.]