CO/3297/2026 of COVENTRY SPRING AND ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED Vs BEEKAY STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED on 25 September 2026

Court No. 6 (265719) 25.09.2026

(AD 31)

(S. Banerjee) CO 3297 of 2026

M/s. Coventry Spring & Engineering Company Limited Vs. M/s. Beekay Steel Industries Limited

Mr. Rishabh Karnani Mr. Pranav Sharma Mr. Arka Biswas

…for the petitioner Mr. Sourav Sen, Sr. Advocate Mr. Debdeep Sinha Ms. Devanshi Prasad

…for the opposite-party

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the orders dated July 13, 2026 and August 14, 2026, both passed by the learned Commercial Court, Rajarhat, North 24 Parganas in Misc. Case (Com) No. 26 of 2024. By the order dated July 13, 2026 the petitioner was directed to deposit the entire principal amount of the judgment and decree within a stipulated timeframe and the said amount was directed to be kept in an interest bearing fixed deposit account with any nationalized bank in the name of the learned District Judge until further orders. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for modification of the order dated July 13,

2026 and by the subsequent order dated August 14, 2026, the prayer for modification stood rejected. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit was transferred from the ordinary civil court to the commercial court without following the procedures laid down under the Oder 7 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. He further submits that since the petitioner was not aware of the transfer of the suit from the ordinary civil court to the commercial court, the petitioner could not contest the suit and an ex parte decree was passed. Mr. Sen, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite-party submits that the petitioner had knowledge of the transfer of the suit to commercial court and for reasons best known to the petitioner he did not contest the suit and the learned Judge of the Commercial Court was right in passing an ex parte decree. The issue involved in this civil revision application is whether the petitioner could have been directed to deposit the decreetal amount as a condition for stay of the execution case. It is now well-settled that a money decree can be stayed subject to making a deposit of the decretal amount.

After going through the order impugned this Court finds that the petitioner was directed to deposit only the principal amount within a stipulated timeframe and the said amount was directed to be kept in an interest bearing fixed deposit account with any nationalized bank. The correct legal tests have been applied by the learned Judge of the Commercial Court while imposing a condition for passing of a decree of stay of the execution. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the said orders. Accordingly, this revisional application stands disposed of with the above observations.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)