NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8295 OF 2009 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.13638 OF 2007)

BABU BHAI THIBA ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ASHOK RAVI SHANKAR  NARVAL & ORS.      .…RESPONDENT(S)

      O R D E R

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel.  

2. Since this appeal by special leave is directed against  

an  order  granting  interim  relief  the  same  may  be  

disposed of by briefly stating the relevant facts.

3. The appellant claims to have lent certain sums of  

money  to  respondent  No.2,  namely,  Rafique  Sarang.  

Subsequently,  the  disputes  arose  between  the  parties,  

which were referred to a named Arbitrator on 29.5.2001.

The Arbitrator passed an award declaring the respondent  

No.2  liable  to  pay  a  sum  of  Rs.78,96,300/-  to  the  

appellant   i.e.  Babu Bhai  Thiba.  The  appellant  sought  

execution  of  the  Award  in  the  Bombay  High  Court.  It  

appears that an order was passed by the Bombay High  

Court in the execution application on 1.8.2003 directing  

attachment of several properties including the premises  

No.108 Palm Spring CGHS Limited, First Floor, Swamy  

Samarth  Nagar,  Andheri  (W),  Mumbai.   At  this  stage,  

respondent  No.1,  Ashok  Ravi  Shankar  Naval,  filed  

Chamber Summons No.1277/2003 seeking an order for  

raising  attachment  of  the  aforesaid  premises,  on  the  

ground that he is the owner, thereof. In support of his  

plea  he  relied  upon  two  agreements  dated  1.10.1999  

executed by respondent No.2, Rafiq Sarang, his wife Mrs.  

Shahnaz  Rafiq  Sarang,  with  respondent  No.1  and  his  

wife. He claimed that under one agreement he had paid a  

sum of Rs.9,53,000/- in cash as a loan transaction. The  

second agreement was for sale of the aforesaid premises  

in case of failure to repay the loan amount. Since Rafique  

2

Sarang failed to repay the loan, the premises were duly  

transferred  in  the  name  of  respondent  No.1  by  the  

Society.

4. Upon consideration of the entire matter, the learned  

Single  Judge  observed  that  both  the  agreements  are  

bogus documents and cannot be accepted. Therefore, the  

Chambers  Summons  came  to  be  dismissed  by  the  

learned  Single  Judge  by  order  dated  9.3.2005.  

Respondent No.1 carried the matter in appeal before the  

Division  Bench.  By  order  dated  4.6.2007  the  Division  

Bench restrained the appellant from taking further steps  

to  dispose  of  the  properties  in  execution of  the  award  

dated  May  29,  2001.  This  order  is  challenged  in  this  

appeal by special leave by the appellant who is seeking to  

execute the Award.  

5. Initially at the time when the notice was issued on  

17.8.2007 this Court directed that until further orders,  

no third party rights shall  be created in the subject of  

dispute.  Upon consideration of the entire matter, we are  

of the opinion that the interim relief granted earlier by  

3

this Court needs to be continued during the pendency of  

the proceedings in the High Court.  However,  we direct  

that the aforesaid order of injunction will be subject to  

the appellant depositing a sum of Rs.15 lakhs with the  

Prothonotary  and  Senior  Master  of  the  Bombay  High  

Court.  The amount deposited in the High Court shall be  

invested  in  Fixed  Deposit  with  a  Nationalised  Bank  

initially  for  a  period  of  one  year;  to  be  renewed  

periodically for like term till the disposal of the matter by  

the High Court. In case the appeal filed by Respondent  

No.1 is dismissed, the amount deposited, together with  

accrued interest shall be refunded to the appellant. The  

appeal is disposed of accordingly.

  ..……….……………………….J            (TARUN CHATTERJEE)

      ..…………………………………J           (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

NEW DELHI DECEMBER  15 , 2009.

4