1 mss CAW+162 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.162 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4527 OF 2010 Transworld Furtichem Pvt.Ltd.& Anr. .. Petitioners V/s Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Nusrat Shah with Mr. Pervin Contractor, Zia Sayed and Ema Almeida i/by Mr. A.K. Gupta for Petitioners. Mr. Shrijeet Phadke with Mr. J.S. Deo for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, with Mr. N.P. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 16th March, 2011. P.C.: By this civil application, the petitioners have sought modification of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 7.1.2011, to which one of us (R. G. Ketkar, J.) was a party. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to Paragraph No. 7 of the said order, wherein the Division Bench has recorded a statement made by Mr. Kumbhakoni, to the effect that the value of the goods according to respondents 3 and 4 is worth more than Rs.30 crores. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the said statement is incorrect, inasmuch as the value of the goods is only 2 mss CAW+162 Rs.16,31,06,957/-. Mr. Kukbhakoni, however, states that he maintains the said statement and it is correct. In the circumstances, it is not possible to modify the order dated 7.1.2011 as requested by learned counsel for the petitioners. We may only add one sentence to the order dated 7.1.2011 in Paragraph No. 7 that “It is stated by counsel for the petitioners that the goods are worth Rs.16,31,06,957/-”. Order is modified accordingly. 2. The petitioners have made second prayer in the civil application that the order dated 7.1.2011 directing the petitioners to furnish bank guarantee be modified, and instead, the petitioners be directed to furnish fixed deposit of a Nationalized Bank in the name of the Registrar General of this Court to the extent of the amount that may be fixed by this Court taking into consideration the correct valuation of the seized goods. 3. Paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit of Gurudatta Narayan Girigosavi, District Quality Control Inspector, Raigad reads as under:- “I say that the Department has no objection if the Applicant provides for security by way of fixed deposit provided, nobody else has charge over it and the Department is able to encash it without any hindrance. I submit that during the pendency of the 3 mss CAW+162 writ petition, the Applicant may be restrained for encashing the said fixed deposit. Necessary undertaking may be directed to be given to renew the fixed deposit if its terms gets over before the disposal of the writ petition”. 4. In view of the above, order dated 7.1.2011 is modified to the extent that the petitioners shall provide security by way of fixed deposit of a Nationalized Bank in the name of the Registrar General of this Court in the sum of Rs.10 crores, instead of furnishing the Bank Guarantee. Petitioners are granted six weeks time to furnish the fixed deposit instead of Bank Guarantee. 5. It is made clear that the petitioners will not create any charge on the said fixed deposit they will not encash the same and will keep the same renewed from time to time till disposal of the petition. The petitioners shall give undertaking to that effect to the Registrar General of this court. The fixed deposit be accepted subject to this undertaking. 6. Civil Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 7. Registrar General and parties to act on ordinary copy of this order 4 mss CAW+162 duly authenticated by the registry. (R. G. KETKAR, J.) (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)