1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1. CA/6332/2010 In FA/3923/2008 WITH CA/6333/2010 In FA/3923/2008 -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, Adv., for the applicant. Mr.N.L.Chaudhari, Adv., for R.No.3. Mr.P.B.Salunke, Adv., h/f Mr.V.R.Mundada, Adv., for R.1. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:22/10/2010 1. Perused the earlier order dt. 11.2.2010 whereby the claimants were allowed to receive Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. two lacs) from the deposited amount on surety. The appeal is admitted on 17th March, 2010. The appellant Insurance Company was directed to deposit the residue, the subject matter of the award, within six weeks. Mr.Jadhavar, learned Counsel informs, this is not complied. 2 2. Sum and substance of both the applications is to modify the above order dt.11.2.2010 and also to permit the claimants to withdraw the entire amount deposited in this Court, including accrued interest. 3. As the very crux involving liability of the Insurance Company is subject before the Hon'ble Lordships of the Supreme Court and as reliance is placed on Bhagyalakshmi and others Vs. United Insurance Company Limited and another (2009) 7 SCC 148), it would be hazardous to entertain the application, allowing the claimants (respondent in the appeal) to withdraw entire amount and that too, without any fetters. In the situation, though the earlier order of surety deserves to be recalled, considering the plight of the claimants/respondents, however, the request for disbursement/release of the amount deposited in this Court, at this stage, is not entertained. Hence order: 4. From the deposited amount, the 3 claimants ( respondents in the appeal) to receive an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. three lacs). The claimants shall furnish an undertaking to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to reimburse, in the event the result in First appeal No. 3923/2008 proceeds adverse to them. Both the applications allowed to the extent, as above. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/6332-10cagr