- (1.) By consent of the parties, both the appeals and the application are treated on day's list and disposed of by the common order.
(2.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 30th September 2019. The grievance of the appellant is that the first defendant was directed to pay Rs. 50 lakh in cash instead of bank draft. It appears from the impugned order that out of Rs. 75 lakh, Rs. 50 lakh was directed to be paid in cash and the balance Rs. 25 lakh by way of pay order, aggregating to Rs. 75 lakh. The appellant submits that since it was unable to arrange Rs. 50 lakh in cash and was seeking modification of the said order, the appellant was unable to furnish the security within the period stipulated in the order. Mr. Anirban Kumar Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, on instruction, submits that as on date, it would be approximately Rs. 3.6 crore and unless the entire amount is secured, the question of releasing the goods cannot arise. Mr. Ray further submits that the suit was filed suppressing the jurisdiction clause. Mr. Ray has submitted that an application for modification of the order dated 30th September 2019 is pending in which directions have been given for filing affidavits. The Learned Single Judge refused to pass any interim order without affording any opportunity to the defendant to file affidavit in opposition.
(3.) The appellant has preferred two distinct appeals being and against both orders, one dated 30th September 2019 and the other dated 22nd October 2019. The respondents have not challenged the orders dill date.;