IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO. 595 OF 2006 NO. 595 OF 2006 NO. 595 OF 2006 IN IN IN NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1887 OF 2006 OF MOTION NO. 1887 OF 2006 OF MOTION NO. 1887 OF 2006 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 833 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 833 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 833 OF 2006 1. Bombay Science & Research Education ] .. Appellants Institute & 4 ors. ] (Ori.Def.No.1, 2, 4, 5 & 6) Versus 1. Uran Ship Yard Pvt. Ltd. & 5 ors. ] .. Respondents (Ori.Pltff.& Def. Nos.3,7,8 & 9) Mr. D.H. Mehta with Mr. K.R. Tiwari for appellants. Ms. S. Priya for the respondent No.1. CORAM: R.M. LODHA & S.R. SATHE, JJ. DATED: 01ST SEPTEMBER, 2006 P.C. : . We heard Mr. D.H. Mehta, the counsel for the appellants and Ms. S. Priya, the counsel for respondent No.1 (original plaintiff). 2. The contesting respondent is respondent No.1 only and it is represented by the Advocate and, therefore, we are satisfied that Appeal can be finally disposed of at this stage. : 2 : 3. The defendant No.2, on behalf of defendant No.1 and on his own behalf, filed an Affidavit in response to the Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiff. In the said Affidavit, particularly paragraph 13, it is stated that the defendant No.1 is having immovable property (typographically wrongly stated as movable property) worth Rs.4 crores. Mr. D.H. Mehta, the counsel for appellant reiterates this position. He places on record, a copy of 7 X 12 extract marked "X" for identification purposes. Mr. D.H. Mehta also states before us that presently the appellants have no intention to dispose of the said property and if and when the appellants intend to sell the said property or any portion thereof, permission from the Court shall be obtained. 4. In view thereof, we are satisfied that there is no justification in directing the defendants by way of an ad-interim order to furnish security in the sum of Rs.23,33,421/-. 5. We, accordingly, discharge the ad-interim order dated July 14, 2006 without prejudice to the contentions of the parties in the Notice of Motion which is yet to be finally heard. This order shall not influence the consideration of the Notice of Motion on : 3 : its own merits. 6. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. . No costs. Sd/- [R.M. [R.M. [R.M. LODHA, J.] LODHA, J.] LODHA, J.] Sd/- [S.R. [S.R. [S.R. SATHE, J.] SATHE, J.] SATHE, J.]