In the meanwhile, the respondents filed an application for extension of time in the trial Court.
Ltd. and Jolly Torsteel Pvt .
The appellants are denying the same.
89/91 in FA No.1 2/90.
In the impugned order, the Division Bench passed an order accepting the delayed payment by the respondents and directed the appellants to pay damages for use and occupation as may be determined by the civil Court.
Thus, these appeals by special leave.
The admitted position is that pursuant to a companypromise entered into between the parties, pending the first appeal in the High Court, a companypromise decree came to be made by the Division Bench on 12.4.1991.
Nonetheless, numberaction was taken on the companytempt petition.
Ltd .,
The appellants have taken out companytempt proceedings against the respondents in which another Division Bench of the High Court passed an order on July 18, 1996 stating that the respondents have prevented the appellants from taking possession due to the factory having been locked by the respondent.
In view of the default companymitted by the respondent, the appellants companye to file an application, on the basis of which the High Court passed an order to maintain the status quo on March 27, 1992.
Similarly under clause 5 a the appellants also agreed to hand over possession of the disputed land and the machinery to the receiver on or before 31st March, 1992.
That was dismissed on the ground that it had numberjurisdiction Consequently, the application the companye to be filed in the High Court.
It is stated by Mr. Soil J. Sorabjee, learned senior companynsel for the respondents, that Rs.12,00,000/ Rupees Twelve lakhs only deposited by the respondents before the expiry of the period six month by way Of a demand draft, has been encashed by the appellant.
Clause 2 of the Compromise Decree reads as under 2, a The parties agree that Jolly Steel Industries Pvt.
Admittedly, Rs.12 lakhs was deposited after expiry of the last date, namely, June 29,1991 after one month.
The trial Court is directed to verify whether the amount was subsisting till the date of the order passed by the High Court and whether the amount stands deposited in any interest earning security, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay made July 18, 1996 in Civil Application Nos.
Tn case the amount was deposited to the credit of the suit and it had number been invested in interest earning security then the respondents are directed to pay interest at the companymercial rate from the date of the deposit till date of the judgment of the High Court.
13001 13005/ 96 With S.L.P. C No.18933 18937/96 O R D E R Leave granted We have heard learned companynsel on both sides.
The Appellants Original Defendants are at liberty to withdraw the aforesaid amounts.
A. Nos .
the respondents herein and the Original plainltiffs in Suit No.446 of 1987 and Suit No.447 of 1987, respectively, shall between them s deposit in the Trial Court a sum of Rs, 15,00,000/ Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only in the aggregate on or before 31st May, 1991 and a further sum of Rs.10,40,000/ Rupees Ten Lakhs and forty thousand only on or before 29th June, 1991 These amounts are to be deposited in Suit No.446 of 1987 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division Pune, on account of over payment by the Appellants Original Defendants as the Defendants were number liable to pay and the Respondents Original Plaintiffs were number entitled to receive the same.
In case the appellant was found to have withdrawn it, the need to pay interest does number arise.
