KAUSHAL ARVIND THAKKER Vs. JYOTI KAUSHAL THAKKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Vikramaditya Deshmukh, learned counsel for the Applicant, Ms. Jyoti Kaushal Thakker, Respondent No.1 (Applicant-in-person) and Mr. N. B. Patil, learned APP for the State.

(2.) The Applicant has challenged the orders dtd. 06/05/2023 and 16/05/2023 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court, Kurla, Mumbai, in CC No.1356/MISC/2023. The Applicant has already filed DV Appeal No.94 of 2023 before the Court of Sessions challenging the original order dtd. 06/01/2023. That Appeal is still pending before the Court of Sessions, Greater Mumbai. In the meantime, since the Distress Warrant was issued against the Applicant he has challenged the order of issuance of Distress Warrant by way of the present Revision Application. The Vacation Bench vide order dtd. 23/05/2023 directed the Applicant to deposit an amount of Rs.25,00,000.00 on or before 29/05/2023 and liberty was given to the Respondent No.1 to apply for withdrawal of the said amount. On deposit of the said amount, ad-interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause (e). It was for staying of Distress Warrant dtd. 06/05/2023 in Execution Proceeding bearing No.CC/1356/MISC/2023.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the Applicant as well as the Respondent No.1 who appears in person, in my opinion this application can be disposed of in light of the order dtd. 23/05/2023 by continuing the similar directions for a period of four weeks and by directing the Sessions Court to decide pending Appeal within a period of four weeks.