IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT BOMBAY AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.426 OF 2000 SUMMARY SUIT NO.426 OF 2000 SUMMARY SUIT NO.426 OF 2000 M/s.Mettle Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. ...Plaintiff M/s.Mettle Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. ...Plaintiff M/s.Mettle Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. ...Plaintiff Vs. Vs. Vs. M/s. Nieclon Limited & Ors. ...Defendants M/s. Nieclon Limited & Ors. ...Defendants M/s. Nieclon Limited & Ors. ...Defendants Mr.K.M.Kishinchandani, Chairman of the Plaintiffs present Mr.K.M.Kishinchandani, Chairman of the Plaintiffs present Mr.K.M.Kishinchandani, Chairman of the Plaintiffs present in person in person in person CORAM: SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. CORAM: SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. CORAM: SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 10TH JANUARY, 2007 DATED: 10TH JANUARY, 2007 DATED: 10TH JANUARY, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Decree has been passed in favour of the 1. The Decree has been passed in favour of the 1. The Decree has been passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant No.4 on 28th November, Plaintiffs and against the Defendant No.4 on 28th November, Plaintiffs and against the Defendant No.4 on 28th November, 2000. A Decree has been passed in favour of the Plaintiffs 2000. A Decree has been passed in favour of the Plaintiffs 2000. A Decree has been passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants 2 and 3 on 15th September, 2005. and against the Defendants 2 and 3 on 15th September, 2005. and against the Defendants 2 and 3 on 15th September, 2005. 2. The Defendant No.4 has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- to 2. The Defendant No.4 has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- to 2. The Defendant No.4 has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- to the credit of the Suit. The Plaintiff desires to withdraw the credit of the Suit. The Plaintiff desires to withdraw the credit of the Suit. The Plaintiff desires to withdraw that amount. It appears that the Office of this Court has that amount. It appears that the Office of this Court has that amount. It appears that the Office of this Court has not allowed the withdrawal because the Defendant No.1 not allowed the withdrawal because the Defendant No.1 not allowed the withdrawal because the Defendant No.1 Company has been represented by the Official Liquidator. Company has been represented by the Official Liquidator. Company has been represented by the Official Liquidator. However, the amount credited to the Suit is not deposited by However, the amount credited to the Suit is not deposited by However, the amount credited to the Suit is not deposited by Defendant No.1. Defendant No.1. Defendant No.1. 3. In view thereof, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to 3. In view thereof, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to 3. In view thereof, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited in Court with interest, if withdraw the amount deposited in Court with interest, if withdraw the amount deposited in Court with interest, if any, accrued thereon. any, accrued thereon. any, accrued thereon. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)