1 Mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.215 OF 2010 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1254 of 2010 ICICI Bank Ltd. ..Appellants Vs. B.D. Industries & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Counsel with Mr. Sachin Chandarana and Mr. Durgesh Khanpurkar i/b. M.K. Ambalal & Co., for Appellants. Mr. D.D. Madon, Senor Counsel with Mr. Kirit Mody and Mr. R.P. Lote for respondent No.1. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.V.MORE, JJ. DATE : 11TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. The plaintiffs as trustees of debenture holders had taken out Motion that the sum of Rs.5.50 crores which was Rs.2.00 crores as principal and Rs.3.50 crores as interest from the amount lying with the Receiver be deposited with them. The Respondents contend that such an application would not be maintainable. The learned trial Judge found merit in that submission and dismissed the Motion against which the present Appeal. 2. There is no dispute that the appellants herein are the trustees of the debenture holders. The contention of the respondent is that moneys are not payable for various reasons. We do not propose to go into that controversy. The only question is 2 whether there is any bar on this Court granting the relief as sought for by the Appellants. On behalf of the respondent learned Counsel contends that only provision for release of money is as contained in Order 39 Rule 10 and that does not apply to the facts of this case. In other words the relief as sought for is not provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure. Yet another aspect is that the money is with the Receiver which on investment will fetch bank rate of interest, whereas the debenture holders if the money is not paid are entitled to much higher rate of interest which if the Appellants succeed, will have to be paid from the principal amount lying with the Receiver thus reducing the amount available to other creditors. In these circumstances it will be open to the Court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the C.P.C.. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, in our opinion, as admittedly the appellants herein are the trustees for the debenture holders we see no reason why the monies presently lying with the Receiver be not paid over to the appellants herein. In the light of that the following order:- (i) The Receiver to pay over to the appellants a sum of Rs.5.50 crores. On this sum from the date the amount is received by the Appellant the interest would stop running. (ii) The appellants to file an undertaking to this Court that in the event the claim of the appellant is dismissed they will bring back the amount and pay such interest which this Court may finally decide. (iii) On the undertaking being filed before this Court and the copy produced before the Receiver, the Receiver to disburse the amount within two weeks thereafter. (iv) Learned Counsel for the respondent prays for stay of the above order. In our 3 opinion, no case made out for stay. Hence application for stay rejected. In view of the disposal of the Appeal the Notice of Motion disposed off. ( R.V.MORE, J.) (F. I. REBELLO, J.)