NMS2008-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2008 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.1283 OF 2009 Dipti Madhusudan Shah .. Plaintiff Versus Dinesh Sampat Shah .. Defendant Mr.Hemant C. Mehta with Dipti Shah i/b. Mehta & Co. for plaintiff Mr.Naushad Engineer with Sunil Gangan i/b. RMG Law Associates for defendant. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 14th October 2010. P.C.: 1] This is a notice of motion in a suit to enforce a foreign judgement. This judgement is in matrimonial proceedings between plaintiffs and defendant and its enforcement and execution was resisted on the ground that the Court which delivered the judgement is not from a reciprocating territory and, therefore, in terms of the statutory provisions, the judgement cannot be enforced and executed NMS2008-09 2 in India. Therefore, relying upon the judgement this suit is filed in which interim reliefs are claimed by the plaintiffs. 2] Interim reliefs that are claimed deal with bank accounts out of which only one bank account viz., HDFC Bank {prayer clause (a-iii)} is in India, whereas rest of the accounts and assets/ moveables are in Australia. Plaintiff resides with her two minor sons in Australia. It is stated that defendant has left Australia but keeps on coming intermittently and it is difficult for the plaintiff to maintain herself. 3] In the affidavit in reply to this motion, in paras 11 and 13 the defendant states that 70% net assets of the parties are awarded but the judgement is ex parte and not on merits. This is an award of permanent lumpsum alimony but the evidence was not allowed to be adduced. As far as the elder son Nevile’s jewellery items are concerned, they are in safe deposit vault in Australia. The defendant is willing to give key to the deposit box/ safe deposit vault to the plaintiff so that she can open the same and take the jewellery. It is NMS2008-09 3 also stated that it is the plaintiff who does not want to collect the keys. 4] After some arguments and when the attention of parties is invited to this affidavit in reply filed on 17th June 2010, it is agreed that the defendant’s Advocate will hand over the key of the deposit vault to Mr.Mehta appearing for plaintiff on or before 21st October 2010. 5] As far as the interim relief in relation to the funds in HDFC bank, Borivali branch is concerned, it is stated by the defendant on affidavit that the said account is frozen by the bank in view of pending legal proceedings. It is stated that a sum of Rs.19 lakhs is lying in this account. 6] In the light of the fact that the account is frozen till date so also bearing in mind the controversy with regard to the binding nature of the judgement of Australia court, interest of justice would be served if it is directed that HDFC bank account No.1451370083379 at Borivali NMS2008-09 4 East Branch shall not be allowed to be operated until further orders of this Court. The bank must await directions in that behalf from this Court. Motion is disposed of in the aforementioned terms with all concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)