KANCHAN UDYAG LTD Vs. MCDOWELL AND CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the execution of the money decree for a sum of Rs. 4 crores and odd passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, though the decree on being upset by the Appeal Court, reached up to Apex Court at one stage and ultimately on remand the decree is under scrutiny again before the appeal Court. To elaborate the aforesaid position the fact is narrated shortly :-

(2.) Thereafter, both the parties filed two separate SLPs against the same judgment and decree. It was the grievance of the judgment-debtor in the SLP amongst others that the First Appellate Court should not have been contended with setting aside the decree and remanding the matter but ought to have dismissed the suit altogether. Whereas the decree-holder-plaintiff, countered and ventilated its grievance in the SLP that Division Bench ought not to have set aside the decree and remanded the matter, rather it ought to have affirmed the decree passed by learned trial Judge. The Supreme Court not only admitted both the SLPs but disposed of the same by a common judgment dated 14/12/2001. By this judgment and order the Apex Court seems to have listened to and allowed the partial prayer of both the parties and directed the First Appellate Court to hear the appeal Court itself de novo, after setting aside the order and judgment of the 1st Appellate Court. While passing the aforesaid order the Apex Court observed that the appeal Court itself ought to have decided the matter on the basis of the material and evidence made available to them on records and ought not to have remanded the matter.

(3.) It is an admitted position that the appeal is still pending after being remanded. At no point of time there was any application for stay of operation of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. It is also an admitted position, previously there was no attempt to make any application for execution of the decree either.