CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM Vs. V N ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for vacating and modifying the order dated 14.1.2004 passed in Misc Case No. 216 of 2003. By the said order, the Court directed ad interim stay of further proceeding in Execution Case No. 18 of 2003 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar until further orders subject to cash deposit of 50% of the decretal dues by the appellants in shape of demand draft and bank guarantee for the remaining amount before the executing Court.

(2.) THE respondent supplied some goods to the appellant and was paid part of the price of the goods. For the balance price, the respondent moved this Court in O.J.C. No. 5565 of 1994 which was disposed of by order dated 14.11.1995 with a direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 66,09,699.36 to the respondent. Against the order of this Court, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition SLP (C) No. 5239 of 1995 and the Supreme Court disposed of the matter with the direction that he appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 23 lakhs to the respondent as the said amount is not disputed and the respondent will file a regular suit before the Civil Court for rest of the claim. Pursuant to the said order passed by the Supreme Court, the respondent filed Money Suit No. 311 of 1996 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar for realization of the principal amount of Rs. 43,09,699.26p with interest at the rate of 22% per annum and in the said suit, the appellant also filed a counter claim of Rs. 19,43,007/ - with interest at the rate of 22% per annum, and by judgment and decree dated 14.11.2002, the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar now Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar decreed the claim of the respondent towards the principal amount of Rs. 43,09,699.36p with interest at the rate of 17% per annum from 1.10.1992 till the date of actual payment but dismissed the counter claim of the appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal against the said judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar.

(3.) MR . P. N. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the other hand, submitted that the claim of the respondent in the suit was fraudulent and, in fact, the respondent -V.N. Enterprises does not exist any longer. He further submitted that in case the Court directs deposit of the amount decreed and allows the. respondent to withdraw the amount deposited in Court, the appellant will suffer immense prejudice, if the respondent is not able to pay the amount in case the appeal succeeds. He further submitted that if the respondent is allowed to withdraw the amount, the appellant will be deprived of all the interest that will accrue on such amount in the event the appellant succeeds in the appeal.