spb/- 1 wp7268-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7268 OF 2010 ISPL Industries Ltd., ... Petitioner. Vs. M/s. Vinod Engineering ... Respondent. --- Mr.Vineet Naik i/by Sukand R. Kulkarni for the Petitioner. Mr. Anilkumar Patil for the Respondent. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 06th DECEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2 Mr. Anilkumar Patil, Advocate, waives service for the Respondents. By consent, taken up for hearing. 3 The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. A money decree in the sum of Rs. 6,50,923=25/- was passed against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents in Special Civil Suit No. 80 of 2001. The petitioner challenged the said decree by filing an appeal in this court alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The spb/- 2 wp7268-10.sxw application for condonation of delay was dismissed for non-removal of the office objections. Consequently, the appeal also stood dismissed and the money decree has attained finality. 4 The respondents had filed execution proceedings (special darkhast no. 15/2005) in the court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Thane for execution of the decree. In the said execution proceeding, the executing court passed an order of issuance of warrant in the sum of Rs. 11,73,945=25/- (inclusive of interest) on 23rd February, 2006 and also passed an order of appointment of Receiver on 15th June, 2006. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed for vacating the orders passed by the executing court and for dismissal of the execution proceedings on various grounds. By an order dated 22nd July, 2010 the application was rejected. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5 Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner company has been declared to be a sick company under the Sick Industrial Companies Act (hereinafter, for short referred to as “the SICA”) by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction by its spb/- 3 wp7268-10.sxw order dated 22nd May, 2001. The petitioner still continues to be a sick company and therefore, no execution proceedings could have been initiated and/ or continued in view of section 22 of the SICA. Without prejudice to this contention, he submitted that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount of decree (inclusive of interest) in the trial court on 7th January, 2008 and therefore the order for appointment of the court receiver and/ or sealing of the petitioner’s premises needs to be vacated. A copy of receipt of the deposit made is annexed at page 105 of the petition. 6 In view of the fact that the entire decretal amount together with interest has been deposited in the trial court, in my view, the order of appointment of a receiver and/ or sealing of the premises cannot be continued. Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the order of appointment of receiver and sealing of the premises is vacated, then the petitioner would not press for any further relief in this petition and reserve its right to agitate its contentions before the executing court. 7 As stated earlier, in view of the fact that the entire decretal amount has been deposited in the court, no purpose would be served by spb/- 4 wp7268-10.sxw continuation of the appointment of the receiver and/ or sealing of the premises. 8 For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed in part. The order of the executing court, appointing the court receiver and or action of the receiver, if there be any, regarding sealing of the property is hereby quashed and set aside. 9 Liberty to the parties to agitate their contentions before the executing court. 10 Rule is made absolute in the above terms. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]