Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Bench of Manish Pitale & Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ)

Order Date: 12 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: LOIL Overseas Foods Limited and others (Appellants/Applicants) vs. Modern India Ltd and others (Respondents); Respondent No.6 is National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL).
  • The appeal (Lodging No. 3362 of 2025) challenges the impugned judgement/decree dated 20 December 2023, the reasoned order uploaded on 03 June 2024, and a clarificatory order uploaded on 09 August 2024.
  • The operative order was modified after a request by NSEL on 26 August 2024; the applicants became aware of the final order on 21 August 2024 and filed for a certified copy on 26 August 2024, which was provided on 30 August 2024.
  • The statutory period of 30 days for filing an appeal expired on 30 September 2024, resulting in a claimed delay of 125 days (respondent contended 146‑222 days).

Interim Application No. 7796 of 2026 – Condonation of Delay

  • Applicants sought condonation of the 125‑day delay, citing reasons in paragraphs 9.1‑9.6, 12.1‑12.4 and 14.1‑14.5, including the untimely death of a relative of the advocate on record.
  • Respondent NSEL disputed the delay period and the legitimacy of the advocate’s death claim, labeling it vague and a delaying tactic.
  • Applicants rebutted, stating the advocate was only providing logistical support and that a death certificate (Exhibit A) was attached.
  • The Court examined the affidavits, the death certificate, and the detailed reasons, finding them sufficient.
  • Outcome: The Court allowed the condonation of delay as per prayer clause (a) and disposed of the application.

Appeal (Lodging) No. 3362 of 2025

  • After hearing senior counsel, the Court found arguable questions and admitted the appeal.
  • The entire record of the original proceedings shall be placed with the appeal.
  • Appellants were granted liberty to file any pending compilation of documents within two weeks and to remove any office objections.
  • The appeal was listed for hearing in the second week of February 2027.

Interim Application No. 11183 of 2026 – Stay of Execution

  • Applicants prayed for an unconditional stay of the impugned money decree and for restraining NSEL from execution steps during the pendency of the appeal.
  • NSEL opposed, arguing that for a money decree, a stay is ordinarily conditioned on depositing the decretal amount with interest.
  • The Court recounted the procedural history: third‑party notices in Suit No. 173 of 2014, constitution of a High Court Committee (HCC) on 02 September 2014, and subsequent reports (Nos. 39, 43, 47) accepted by the learned Single Judge.
  • Applicants contended that the Single Judge erred by not framing issues, not recording evidence, and by relying solely on the HCC report, thereby rendering the decree perverse and untenable.
  • NSEL counter‑argued that the HCC’s mandate included forensic audits and that the Single Judge was empowered under Original Side Rules to accept the report without a full trial; they also highlighted the applicants’ non‑cooperation, repeated stalling, and lack of urgency.
  • The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lifestyle Equities C.V. & another vs. Amazon Technologies Inc. (2026) outlining the parameters for granting a stay under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC, emphasizing the need for “sufficient cause” and the high threshold for an unconditional stay of a money decree.
  • Applying those principles, the Court observed:
  • The decree is a money decree; ordinarily a stay requires deposit of the amount.
  • Applicants failed to demonstrate an “exceptional case” (egregiously perverse, patent illegalities, facially untenable).
  • Their conduct—non‑cooperation with the HCC, refusal to produce documents, and delayed filing of the stay application (27 March 2026) after the appeal itself (31 January 2025)—showed lack of urgency.
  • Attachments under PMLA and MPID Acts do not merit indulgence for an unconditional stay.
  • Final Outcome: The Court denied the request for an unconditional stay but granted a conditional stay of the impugned judgement/decree dated 20 December 2023 (including the reasoned and clarificatory orders), subject to the applicants depositing the decretal amount with interest before the Prothonotary and Senior Master within eight weeks. Failure to deposit will vacate the stay. The amount is to be invested to earn interest during the appeal.
  • The stay application is disposed of accordingly; the earlier interim application (Lodging No. 6826 of 2026) for disclosures is listed separately.

Final Outcome Summary

  • Condonation of 125‑day filing delay was allowed.
  • Appeal admitted; hearing set for February 2027.
  • Unconditional stay of the money decree was rejected; a conditional stay was granted pending deposit of the decretal amount with interest within eight weeks.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Stay of Execution