Bombay High Court

GARLICK ENGINEERING ( AN ERSTWHILE CLOSED DIV. OF M/S. EMPIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. ) AND ORSversusSURESH KRISHNA PATIL AND ORS

Decided: 23 April 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: AMIT BORKAR

Holding

The Court allowed the interim applications, granting withdrawal of the Rs. 25 lakh deposit and return of the bank guarantees, and corrected the typographical error.

Summary

The petitioners, Garlick Engineering Ltd (formerly a division of Empire Industries Ltd), filed interim applications seeking the withdrawal of Rs. 25 lakh deposited pursuant to an order dated 22 April 2019 and the return of bank guarantees issued under that order. The respondents indicated an intention to challenge the original order before the Supreme Court, arguing that the interim relief should not be granted. The Court examined the reasons set out in the original judgment and found that the petitioners had established a sufficient case for the relief sought in prayer clause “a”. It also noted that prayer clause “b” pertained merely to a typographical error and therefore warranted correction. Consequently, the Court allowed both the withdrawal of the deposited amount and the return of the bank guarantees, including the correction of the typographical mistake.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners are entitled to interim relief for withdrawal of the Rs. 25 lakh deposit despite pending Supreme Court challenge
Whether a typographical error in the original order can be corrected through the interim application

Subjects

interim relief
bank guarantee
withdrawal of deposit
typographical error
high court
appeal

Judgment

                                                                           22-IA-3054-26+.doc


                                                                                   Sayali


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3054 OF 2026
                                                IN
SAYALI                             WRIT PETITION NO. 3805 OF 2019
DEEPAK                                         WITH
UPASANI                         INTEIRM APPLICATION NO.3058 OF 2026
Digitally signed
by SAYALI                                       IN
DEEPAK
UPASANI                            WRIT PETITION NO. 3836 OF 2019
Date: 2026.04.23
16:51:42 +0530
                   Garlick Engineering Ltd (Erstwhile               Applicant/
                   closed division of Empire Industries Ltd)       Org. Respondent
                                                                 …
                   In the matter Between
                   s

                   Garlick Engineering Ltd Division of
                   Empire Industries Ltd                             Petitioner
                             V/s.
                   Suresh Karale and Others                      … Respondents

                   Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Sujeet P.
                   Salkar, for Applicant.
                   Mr. C. M. K. Lokes i/b Mr. Ravindra Nair, for
                   Respondent.

                                                CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                DATED      : APRIL 23, 2026

                   P.C.:

                   1.      The applications are filed seeking relief of withdrawal of an
                   amount of Rs. 25 lakhs deposited in furtherance of the order
                   dated 22 April 2019 and for return of the Bank guarantees
                   furnished as per the said order.



                                                      1
                                                    22-IA-3054-26+.doc


2.    The learned Advocate for the respondent states that the
respondent intends to challenge the order before the Supreme
Court and, therefore, the applications may not be allowed.

3.    Having considered the reasons assigned in the judgment, in
my opinion, the applicants have made out a case for grant of
relief in terms of prayer clause “a”.

4.    Hence, the applications are allowed in terms of prayer
clause “a” and, insofar as prayer clause “b” relates to a
typographical error, the same is also allowed.



                                           (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                  2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…