MR.ABHIK BHANU (SOLE PROPRIETOR OF SARAYU VISION)versusVIJAYKUMAR TRIVEDI AND ANR.

                                                                              6-IA-5114-2026 @.doc




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
           Digitally
           signed by
           HUSENBASHA
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN    NADAF
                                       INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5114 OF 2026
NADAF      Date:
           2026.08.31
           20:07:59
                                                      WITH
           +0530
                                       INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3304 OF 2026
                                                        IN
                                           FIRST APPEAL NO. 463 OF 2026

                        Mr. Abhik Bhanu
                        (Sole Proprietor Of Sarayu Vision)            ....Applicant/Appellant
                               V/s
                        Vijay Kumar Trivedi And Anr.                  ....Respondents

                                                        ***
                        Mr. Amandeep Singh a/w. Mr. Abhijit Ranjan, Ms. Rithika Yerra i/b
                        Chittaranjan,    Shah    Kay  Legal   &    Associates   LLP    for
                        Applicant/Appellant.
                        Mr. Vijay Kumar Trivedi and Ms. Sapna Trivedi Respondents Nos.1 &
                        2 party-in-person, present.
                                                       ***
                                                          CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                               DATE    : 31st AUGUST, 2026
                        P.C. :

                        1.       Taken up as an alternate Bench, due to order dated 21.08.2026
                        passed by Justice Ms. Aarti A. Sathe stating ‘not before me’.

                        2.       Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

                        3.       The Applicant/Appellant is the Defendant in Summary Suit No.
                        617 of 2023, which is filed by Respondents/Plaintiffs for recovery of
                        Rs.60,52,500/- with future interest @ 6% per month from date of
                        suit. The summary suit is based on a Memorandum of Understanding
                        dated 04.06.2021 between the parties (‘the said MoU’ for short),
                        under which, the Respondents invested Rs.35,00,000/- with the

                        Husen                                  1
                                                    6-IA-5114-2026 @.doc




Appellant for production of a film and post dated cheque was issued
by the Appellant.

4.      IA/3304/2026 is filed seeking interim stay to the impugned
Judgment and Decree dated 26.03.2026 passed by City Civil Court at
Dindoshi (Borivali Division) in Summary Suit No. 617 of 2023.
IA/5114/2026 is filed seeking stay to Order dated 03.07.2026 passed
below Exhibit No. 8 in Execution Application No. 39 of 2026. It is
informed that the Executing Court has passed an order below Exhibit
No. 8 attaching the Appellant’s property.

5.      By order dated 08.09.2025, after hearing both sides, the
learned Trial Judge granted leave to defend to the present Appellant
on a condition that he deposits a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- in the Court
within a period of 6 weeks. The Appellant challenged this order by
filing Appeal from Order No.563 of 2025. Notwithstanding whether
such appeal was maintainable or not, it is not disputed that before
this appeal could be taken up for hearing, the summary suit itself was
finally heard and decreed. It is also not disputed that the conditional
order for leave to defend was not complied in as much as the
Appellant did not deposit the amount of Rs.35,00,000/-.

6.      Learned counsel for the Appellant Mr. Singh tendered list of
dates and events (pages 1 to 152) and additional compilation (pages
1 to 902). He pressed the applications urgently because the execution
is posted on 08.09.2026 for orders post attachment of property.

7.      Mr. Singh submitted that if the concerned Clause No. 4 of the
said MoU is seen, it is a case of contingent contract and it cannot

Husen                                2
                                                     6-IA-5114-2026 @.doc




amount to debt. He submitted that the Respondents have invested the
amount which are agreed to be returned in a contingent manner and
those contingencies have not reached. He submitted that since the
suit has been decreed even before the order of conditional leave can
be tested in appeal, the Appellant is well within his rights to contend
that the ‘unconditional leave’ ought to have been granted to defend
the suit. He submitted that his residential house is attached for
execution. Relying on Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Jyotsna K.
Valia and Ors. Vs. T.S Parekh and Ors. 2007(4) ALL MR 718, it is
submitted that the essential requirements of a debt are not met in the
present case and something which is merely accruing and contingent,
is not a debt. He further relied on Sanjay Mahadeoprasad Trivedi and
Ors. Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank Limited
2026(1) MhLJ 443 in support of his case that once triable issue is
raised, unconditional leave is necessary to be granted. On
instructions,   he   submitted   that   Appellant   is   ready     to       pay
Rs.3,00,000/- to the Respondents.

8.      On the other hand, Respondent No. 1 Mr. Vijaykumar Trivedi,
who appeared in person for both himself and Respondent Nos. 2
(who is also present in the Court) opposed grant of any relief in
favour of the Appellant. He tendered affidavit in reply dated
15.07.2026 to First Appeal (pages 1 to 145) and affidavit in reply
dated 15.07.2026 to IA/5114/2026 (pages 1 to 18).

9.      Respondent No. 1 invited the Court's attention to exchange of
email communication dated 22.07.2022 between the parties
contending that the Appellant was not even ready to issue a fresh

Husen                                   3
                                                    6-IA-5114-2026 @.doc




cheque because the post-dated cheque (PDC) issued along with the
MoU was limited by its validity period. He further invited the Court’s
attention to page nos. 185 to 189 from the documents filed by the
Appellants viz. his reply dated 28.07.2025 filed to the leave
application, contending that he had placed on record material in
support of his contention that a notice is published by UP
Government on its website that subsidy has been sanctioned in favour
of the Appellant. He further invited the Court’s attention to page 249
to 251 from the documents filed by the Appellants, contending that
the rights of the film have been dealt with and material in support
thereof is produced to contend that the ‘music release’ as well as
‘release of the movie’ has been advertised showing that the movie is
to be released oversea by World Cinema Partners. He contended that
the impugned decree, being money decree, cannot be stayed unless
the same is secured by either deposit of money in the Court or
payment to the Respondents.

10.     I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record
including above material pointed out.

11.     At the outset, it is necessary to note that by impugned decree
the Appellant is directed to pay Rs.35,00,000/- along with interest @
9% per annum from date of filing of suit till realisation. As on today,
roughly the amount comes to over Rs.44,00,000/-. Nothing is
brought to the notice of the Court that any amount has been
deposited by the Appellant either in the Court or paid to the
Respondents.



Husen                                 4
                                                     6-IA-5114-2026 @.doc




12.     Since the application for leave to defend/file written statement
was heard by the Court and was decided on merits, directing the
Appellant to deposit Rs.35,00,000/- in the Court, which was not
complied with, and since the decree is passed before challenge to the
said order can be heard, the said order has merged in the impugned
decree. Therefore, any argument about whether the Appellant is
entitled to unconditional leave or otherwise, is a matter of final
disposal and therefore, cannot be taken up immediately at the stage
of interim relief.

13.     The effect of prayers made in the above applications, in
essence, is to stay the money decree which is standing in favour of
the Respondents. Whether the MoU and the facts and circumstances
surrounding the MoU, as existed between the parties, amounts to a
‘contingency’ and therefore ‘not a debt’ as argued by the Appellant, is
a matter that will be decided at the time of final hearing. Be that as it
may. The Court has to consider the challenge in prima facie.

14.     From the documents placed on record including material
showing music release of the movie by Red Ribbon Musik and
advertisement about its release on ZEE5 and World Cinema Partner, it
prima facie appears that movie rights have been dealt with. Hence it
can not be said, at least prima facie, that condition in Clause 4B has
not occurred. Similarly considering the material placed on record
about approval of Rs.7,45,941/- as subsidy from UP Government post
audit scrutiny (page 228), which was also brought to the notice of
the Trial Court by filing reply, it prima facie appears that subsidy is
released. Whether Appellant accepted it or disputed it is a different

Husen                                  5
                                                   6-IA-5114-2026 @.doc




matter. Clause 4A does not mention any specific amount of subsidy.
Hence, it also cannot be said, at least prima facie, that condition in
Clause 4A has not occurred. In that view of the matter, at least prima
facie, the MoU terms cannot be said to be ‘mere contingency’. In the
teeth of such factual prima facie material, the judgments relied upon
by the Appellant will not help him.

15.     There is merit in the submission of the Respondents that PDC
given under the MoU (with condition that it cannot be presented
without the Appellant’s written consent) cannot be considered as
weighing in favour of the Appellant. Perusal of the said PDC dated
01.06.2022 drawn on Allahabad Bank indicates that on the backside
of the said cheque, the Appellant had written that ‘this PDC cannot be
presented without Appellant’s written consent’. This endorsement,
prima facie, would only be applicable till the said cheque is valid,
which is admittedly limited for 3 months from 01.06.2022. In that
view of the matter, the Respondents were justified to ask for fresh
PDC which is borne out from the exchange of emails. Therefore,
prima facie even Clause 4D of the said MoU can only be taken as for
limited period expiring within 3 months from date of cheque between
the parties.

16.     While passing the order on application for leave to defend,
which now stands merged with the impugned decree, the Trial Court
has observed that the present case falls in the second category, in as
much as while triable issue exists, the Appellant’s bona fides are in
doubt. Taking note of the fact that the Plaintiffs had advanced
Rs.35,00,000/- by bank transfer and PDC was issued under MoU

Husen                                 6
                                                     6-IA-5114-2026 @.doc




which got dishonored, the unconditional leave was refused and
condition was imposed, which is admittedly not complied with by the
Appellant.

17.      In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons
indicated above, in my view, the impugned decree cannot be stayed
unless (i) the Appellant deposits in the concerned Executing Court
either the entire amount with interest under the impugned decree OR
(ii) the Appellant directly pays to the Respondents the principal
amount under impugned decree i.e. Rs.35,00,000/-, both within a
period of 6 weeks from today.

18.      Hence, both the applications are disposed of by directing that
subject to either of above conditions being complied by the Appellant,
the impugned decree shall remain stayed.

19.      Needless to mention that if the conditions are not met, both
the applications shall stand rejected without further reference to the
Court.

20.      All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.


                                              (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Husen                                  7