← Library
Bombay High CourtAO/1/2018disposed of

Yeshwant V. Gaude (Dec) And 18 ORS., v. Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Rep. Thr. Its Manager (Admn.), R.S. Sawant And ANR.,

2018-04-25Hon'Ble Shri Justice C. V. Bhadang3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1 OF 2018 WITH MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 128 OF 2018 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1 OF 2018 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1 OF 2018 Shri Yeshwant V. Gaude (Dec) & 18 Ors.

... Appellants

Versus

Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Rep. Thr. Its Manager (Admn) ... Respondents *** Shri Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri R. Shetkar, Advocate for the Respondents. MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 128 OF 2018 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Rep. Thr. Its Managing Director ... Applicants

Versus

Yeshwant V. Gaude (Dec) & 19 Ors.

... Respondents *** Shri Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri R. Shetkar, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram : C.V. BHADANG, J.

Date : 25 th APRIL 2018

P.C.

The pursis filed by the learned Counsel for the respondents is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. 2.

The present appeal is filed by the original defendants, challenging the order dated 15.07.2016, granting injunction to the respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs. A bare perusal of the order shows that injunction was granted, on condition of deposit of Rs.30 lakhs, before the Trial Court, within 60 days from the date of the order. Admittedly, the amount is not deposited.

3.

Shri Pangam, the learned Counsel for the appellants therefore submits that the injunction order is not operating for want of compliance of the order.

4.

Apparently, for want of compliance of the condition of the order dated 15.07.2016, the order has not become operative. Be that as it may, the learned Counsel for the respondents states that the respondents are not pressing the application for temporary injunction as well as the application for review of the order dated 15.07.2016. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, also submits that the respondents

is not pressing for Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 128/2018. The statements are accepted.

5.

In such circumstances, the Appeal From Order is disposed of as infructuous and the Miscellaneous Civil Application is dismissed, for want of prosecution. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. C.V. BHADANG, J.

EV