- 1 - 1134 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.1134 OF 2005 in SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.879 OF 2004 in SUMMARY SUIT NO.3049 OF 2004 Janta Glass Works & ors .. Appellants (Orig.Defts) vs The Mahalakshmi Glass Works Pvt.Ltd .. Respondent (Orig.Plffs) Mr.Jaydeep Raut i.b Crawford Bayley & Co for Appellants Mr.Prakash Shinde i.b M.Dhruv & Co for Respondent CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ DATE: 11th January,2011 P.C. 1. This is defendant s appeal against the order dated 5th October, 2005 passed in Summons for Judgment No.879 of 2004 in Summary Suit No.3049 of 2004. By that order, the learned Single Judge of this Court - 2 - 1134 granted conditional leave to defend to the defendants on the condition that the defendants deposits an amount of Rs.6 crores within a period of four weeks in the Court. The amount on being deposited was to be invested in fixed deposit. 2. In this appeal, after admitting the appeal the Division Bench granted interim order in Notice of Motion No.4013 of 2006. Notice of Motion No.4013 of 2006 was disposed of by the Division Bench by an order dated 24th January,2006. The Court granted stay to the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge which was impugned in the appeal subject to the appellant depositing an amount of Rs.4 crores on or before 15th June,2006. It was made clear that if the amounts are not deposited as directed by the Division Bench the interim order shall stand vacated. - 3 - 1134 3. That order was challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2612 of 2006. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal observing that: We are satisfied that the impugned order does not require any interference, except in the matter instalments. 4. The Supreme Court by that order extended the time for deposit of the amount till January 2007. The order of the Supreme Court admittedly was not complied with by the appellant and no amount was deposited. They again moved the Supreme Court by filing I.A.No.1 in Civil Appeal No.2612 of 2006. That was disposed of by the Supreme Court by order dated 12th January, 2007. The order reads as follows : - 4 - 1134 The prayer for extention of time to deposit the balance amount due is opposed by counsel for the respondent. However, as a last chance, we grant two months time to the applicant to deposit the balance sum of Rs. 3 crores which has not been deposited. We have made clear to the applicant that no further time shall be granted. The Application stands disposed of. 5. Even this order was not complied with and I.A.No.2 in Civil Appeal No.2612 of 2006 was taken out before the Supreme Court. That was disposed of an order dated 30th November, 2007 by the Supreme Court. The order reads thus : We are not inclined to entertain this I.A. for modification the Court s order dt. 12.01.2007 and the Contempt Petition. I.A. And the Contempt Petition are accordingly dismissed. However, it will be open to the respondent to proceed in accordance with law. 6. It appears that the appellant again moved the Supreme Court by filing a petition for Special Leave to Appeal. That - 5 - 1134 was disposed of by order dated 8th October, 2010. The order reads thus : “ In case the petitioner deposits Rs.8 crores with the Secretary General of this Court within eight weeks, notice would be issued to the respondent. No further time shall be granted. In case the amount is not deposited, this order would be of no avail to the petitioner and the Special leave Petition shall stand dismissed automatically. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stated before us that the appellant has not deposited the amount as directed by the Supreme Court. 8. It is thus, clear that the appellant has not complied with any orders passed either by the learned Single Judge or Division Bench of this Court or by the Supreme Court from time to time. Thus, the order of the learned Single Judge which is impugned in the Petition has come into effect. - 6 - 1134 9. In these circumstances, in our opinion, there is no room to interfere with the order challenged in the appeal. Appeal is therefore, disposed of. D.K.Deshmukh, J N.D.Deshpande, J