1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL LODGING NO. 40 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2845 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1476 OF 2005 Kishore Mahanti .. Appellant Vs. Tata Steel Ltd. and ors. .. Respondents WITH APPEAL LODGING NO. 42 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2847 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1476 OF 2005 Arjan M. Mahtani and anr. .. Appellants Vs. Tata Steel Ltd. and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Uday Warunjikar a/w Mr. Rahul Karnik for appellants. Mr. Gaurav Joshi a/w Avinash Joshi i/by Mulla & Mulla for respondents. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. February 23, 2010. 2 P.C. 1. These appeals are directed against a common order dated 3/12/2009 and hence, they are being decided by this common order. 2. In Summary Suit No. 1476 of 2005 unconditional leave to defend was granted. The suit was instituted by the present respondent no.1- company for the recovery of an amount of Rs.1,46,7,296/- with interest at 21% per annum from the date of the suit till its payment or realization from all the defendants. Defendant no.1 is the partnership firm, whereas defendant nos.2 to 7 are claimed to be its partners. As no further steps were taken to contest the suit after unconditional leave to defend was granted on 17/4/2006 in favour of defendant nos.3, 4, 5 and 7, the learned trial Judge was pleased to decree the suit on 19/6/2008 against defendant nos.3, 4, 5 and 7. 3. The defendant nos.3, 4, 5 and 7 took out separate Notices of Motion for setting aside the ex parte decree and to restore the Summary Suit. They had also prayed for stay to the execution of the decree by way of 3 ad-interim relief. 4. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge was pleased to stay the execution of the decree by way of ad-interim relief but on the condition that a sum of Rs.50 lakhs shall be deposited by the defendant nos.3, 4, 5 and 7. The Notices of Motion are still pending and thus the appeals are against the ad-interim order directing to deposit Rs.50 lakhs as condition precedent for the stay to the execution of the decree passed on 19/6/2008. 5. As per the learned counsel for the plaintiff the decreetal amount on 19/6/2008 was close to Rs.2 crores. Be that as it may, having considered the arguments advanced before us, we are satisfied that no interference is called for in the discretion exercised by the learned trial Judge. 6. Hence, these appeals are dismissed. 7. Mr. Warunjikar submits an oral application for stay to the operation of this order. 4 In the facts of this case, we are not inclined to consider this request and, therefore, the oral application is rejected. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)