Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 31 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant/Appellant Mr. Abhik Bhanu (Sole Proprietor of Sarayu Vision) vs Respondents Mr. Vijay Kumar Trivedi and Ms. Sapna Trivedi.
  • Nature of Proceedings: Interim applications IA/5114/2026 and IA/3304/2026 filed in First Appeal No. 463 of 2026 seeking stay of the money decree dated 26 March 2026 passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi (Borivali Division) in Summary Suit No. 617 of 2023.
  • Background: The summary suit arose from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 04 June 2021 under which the Respondents invested Rs 35,00,000 with the Appellant for production of a film. The suit sought recovery of the amount with future interest at 6 % per month. The Trial Court, on 08 September 2025, granted conditional leave to defend on the condition that the Appellant deposit Rs 35,00,000 within six weeks, a condition the Appellant failed to fulfil.
  • Appellant’s Arguments: Asserted that Clause 4 of the MoU creates a contingent contract, not a debt; cited case law (Jyotsna K. Valia v. T.S. Parekh, 2007; Sanjay Mahadeoprasad Trivedi v. HDFC Bank, 2026) to claim unconditional leave should be granted; offered to pay Rs 3,00,000; highlighted that a post‑dated cheque (PDC) was limited in validity and that a UP Government subsidy of Rs 7,45,941 had been sanctioned.
  • Respondents’ Arguments: Opposed any stay, submitted affidavits, pointed to email exchange (22 July 2022) showing the Appellant was unwilling to issue a fresh cheque; emphasized that the film’s music and distribution rights have been advertised (World Cinema Partners, ZEE5), indicating that the MoU conditions have been satisfied; argued that the decree is a money decree and can be stayed only upon deposit or payment.

Final Outcome

  • The Court observed that the decree directs the Appellant to pay Rs 35,00,000 plus interest at 9 % per annum, amounting to over Rs 44,00,000 as of the order date.
  • The conditional leave order merged with the decree; the question of unconditional leave is therefore not entertainable at the interim stage.
  • Prima facie evidence shows that Clause 4A (subsidy) and Clause 4B (film rights) have been fulfilled, weakening the Appellant’s contingency argument.
  • The Court held that the post‑dated cheque’s endorsement limiting presentation further supports the Respondents’ position.
  • Directive: The Appellant must either (i) deposit the entire decree amount with interest in the executing court, or (ii) pay the principal amount of Rs 35,00,000 directly to the Respondents, within six weeks from the order date.
  • If the Appellant fails to comply, both interim applications will be rejected and the decree will remain in force.

Topics: Legal Stay; Money Decree