1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3283 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 2063 OF 2001 Jaswinder Paul Batra & Ors. ...Plaintiffs. Vs. Ram Singh Batra & Ors. ...Defendants. Mr.S. Malik with Mr. Santosh Mishra with Mr. K.G. Singhania with Ratna Bhargavan i/by M/s. Singhania & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr. R.M. Bagai with Mr. Sharath Pai for Defendant No.1. Mr. Ajay Khaire i/by M/s. Bodhanwala & Co. for Defendant No.3. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 14th October, 2009. P.C.- 1 The Plaintiffs have taken out this notice of motion and basically praying, for security of the amount i.e. US Dollars 7,19,857.55, as per the claims and for attachment of the property, appointment of Receiver and related relief/injunction. 2 The motion dated 27th August, 2007 is filed in a suit of the year 2001, where the basic prayers are against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 towards 2 the recovery of the amount and connected reliefs with interest and also by way of damages for losses caused to them. As per the plaint itself, the cause of action is based upon the event of 1993, 1994 and 1998, arising out of the Will and final testament of Mr. Jaswant Singh Premi dated, 11th July, 1993. The probate of which was granted in the year 1994 in New York, United States of America (USA). The Petition for letters of administration, was granted by the Bombay High Court on 26/02/1997. The request was made thereafter, based upon the grant of letters, for remittance of deposit amount. The defendants resisted and denied the same and therefore, the present suit. 3 After going through the averments made in the plaint, as well as, the Notice of motion and the affidavit in reply filed by contesting defendant No.1, I am not inclined to grant any interim relief now, at this stage, in this notice of motion for the following reasons:- a) There is a long delay and latches to file the notice of motion for security/ attachment/ appointment of Receiver and injunction. b) The cause of action arose in 1994. The suit was filed on 2001. Therefore, the issue with regard to the limitation, unless decided finally, at this stage, is also against the plaintiff for interim relief. c) Similar action against defendant No.2 based upon the 3 Will, was withdrawn in the year 1999 itself in the Court of United States of America without any liberty. d) There are cases already pending against the defendants. e) It is also recorded that Defendant is under obligation not to leave India, as per bail order. f) The investigation/ Criminal proceedings are also pending. g) The case as stated in the plaint is the withdrawn amount by defendant No.2. The allegations of fraudulent insertion of defendant No. 2’s name is again a matter of trial. The name so incorporated as per the law in the property and transferred in his name at that time, without any objection from the plaintiff, as referred in the affidavit of reply. h) There is a clear denial that defendant No.1 had not appropriated any amount from FCNR Account (closed) of Shri J.S. Premi jointly with Defendant No.2. i) There is also a denial to the entitlement, as there is no mention of the same in the Will made by late J.S. Premi. j) The defendants have denied the allegations of fraud 4 and breach of trust. Those allegations need detail trial and inquiry. 4 In view of above, as there is no material to pass any order with regard to the injunction, appointment of Receiver and/or attachment of property and of furnishing any security as claimed. 5 Having observed above, the respective citations need no discussion. The facts so referred in those cases are totally distinct and distinguishable. 6 Resultantly, the notice of motion is dismissed. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)