TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Contempt Petition (L) No. 105 of 2013 in Notice of Motion (L) No. 1553 of 2013 in Suit (L) No. 677 of 2013 and Interim Order dated 31.10.2014 in Contempt Petition No. 29 of 2014 in Notice of Motion No. 488 of 2014 in Suit No. 284 of 2014. 3. The facts of the case, which lie in a narrow compass, however, need mention in brief to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals. 4. The Appellants are the Defendants whereas the Respondent is the Plaintiff. 5. The Respondent (Plaintiff) has filed one suit being Civil Suit (L) No. 677 of 2013 (renumbered as Civil Suit No. 284/2014) against the Appellants (Defendants) in the High Court of Bombay on its original side for claiming the following reliefs:....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this Hon'ble Court deems appropriate in the nature and circumstances of the case. 6. The Respondent in the aforementioned pending civil suit filed notice of motion being Notice of Motion (L) No. 1553 of 2013 (renumbered as 488 of 2014) against the Appellants herein Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (in short "the Code") and sought ad-interim relief in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (d) as extracted above during the pendency of the Suit. 7. By interim order dated 06.08.2013, the Single Judge granted ex parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (a) to the Respondent. The Appellants herein on receiving the summons filed their detailed reply to the Notice of Motion on 21.08.2013 denying inter alia all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Single Judge, on hearing the Respondent, entertained the contempt petition and by order dated 26.02.2014, observed that on reading the averments made in the contempt petition, a prima facie case for issuance of contempt notice is made out against the Appellants and hence rule be issued against them in the contempt notice making it returnable on 26.03.2014. It was also observed that these proceedings would not come in the way of the Appellants to prosecute any pending proceedings. The Appellants have filed their reply affidavit to the contempt petition on 24.03.2014. The contempt petition is pending. 12. During the pendency of this contempt petition, the Respondent herein filed one additional affidavit on 31.10.2014 in the contempt petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also in his submission doubted correctness of the decision of this Court in Welset Engineers and Anr. v. Vikas Auto Industries and Ors. 2006 (32) PTC 190 (SC), which was relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent against the Appellants contending for dismissal of these appeals. According to learned Counsel for the Appellants, the said decision is per incuriam and thus requires to be reconsidered on the issue decided therein. 16. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we consider it appropriate and in the interest of both the parties to defer our recording of findings on several issues arising in the case and more so legal issues on which lengthy arguments were addressed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he application within 30 days from the date on which the ex parte injunction was granted. 19. It was not done by the Court may be due to myriad reasons despite the Appellants (Defendants) entering appearance as back as 21.08.2013 in the main suit and completing their pleadings on 05.09.2013. As a result, the ex parte ad-interim order dated 06.08.2013 remains in operation. 20. In our view, once the Notice of Motion is finally decided on merits in accordance with law one way or the other then the parties to the Lis can always work out their rights by taking recourse to legal remedies available to them for pursuing their grievance to higher fora either in appeal or revision, as the case may be, and may also prosecute the contempt proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral proceedings such as the one here else our observation may cause prejudice to the parties while prosecuting their case before the original court on merits. 24. It is for these reasons we are of the considered opinion that it would be apposite to request the learned Single Judge to decide Notice of Motion No. 1553/2013 renumbered as 488/2014 arising out of Civil Suit No. 677/2013 renumbered as 284/2014 on merits in accordance with law preferably within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Till it is decided, we are inclined to stay the contempt proceedings out of which these appeals arise. After the disposal of the Notice of Motion, the contempt proceedings may be decided in accordance with law including its ....