( 1 ) FA-2267-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2267 OF 2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9437 OF 2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13699 OF 2025 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Registered Office Address: New India Assurance Building, 87 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Through its Divisional Manager/Authorized Signatory, Ajay Engineering Compound, Adalat Road, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad ...Appellant (Orig. Defendant) V E R S U S R. L. Steels and Energy Limited [ A public Limited company Incorporated under Company Law] Corporate office address: Gat No.78 to 81, 73, 85, 86, 90 and 71, Pangra Shivar, Paithan Road, Chitegaon, Aurangabad-431005. Through: Pradip Madhukar Nijampurkar (Director) Age: 58 years, Occu: Service, R/o. Plot No.60, Harshdeep, Jawahar Nagar Police Station Road, Behind Jain Sweet Home, Jai Vishwa Bharti Colony, Aurangabad-9. ...Respondent (Orig. Plaintiff) ... ( 2 ) FA-2267-2025 Smt. Anagha Rotte, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Harshwardhan Karad i/by Mr. B. B. Yenge, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT & SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ. RESERVED ON : 8th MAY 2026. PRONOUNCED ON : 22nd JUNE 2026. ORDER :- [PER- KISHORE C. SANT, J.] 1. Heard Smt. Rotte, the learned Advocate for Appellant-Insurance Company and Mr. Katneshwarkar, the Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Yenge, the learned Advocate for Respondent. 2. The appellant is the original defendant-Insurance Company against whom the decree is passed in Special Civil Suit No.118 of 2018 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. The respondent is the original plaintiff who filed the said Suit. 3. By consent of the parties, the Appeal is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission, as the record and proceeding is received. The parties are referred to as per their original status in the Suit for the purpose of convenience. ( 3 ) FA-2267-2025 4. By way of impugned Judgment and Decree, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Aurangabad, has allowed the Suit directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,94,361/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of filing of the Suit till actual realization of the entire amount. 5. The facts, as appearing from pleadings, giving rise to the present appeal are as below: . the plaintiff is having its steel plant at Pangra Shivar, Chitegaon Road, Tal. Paithan Dist. Aurangabad. The said is insured with defendant/Insurance Company vide policy No.45110011160100000421 which was valid till 17.06.2017. The total amount of sum assured was Rs.280,00,95,000/-. During the period of validity of insurance policy, there was a storm occurred in the area on 05.07.2016. Due to storm, the shade of steel melting shop collapsed, causing damage to the machinery and the building. At the time of storm, it was raining heavily and the stock of steel got exposed to the rain. Because of coming into contact with the rain, the steel stock got damaged by oxidization, causing loss to ( 4 ) FA-2267-2025 the plaintiff. The First Information Report (FIR) was immediately lodged with Bidkin Police Station. Intimation of the incident was given to Group Gram Panchayat Pangra and to the Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health. Intimation was also given to the Defendant and the claim was raised for Rs.1,87,00,000/-. 6. It is the case of the plaintiff that after intimation of incident, the inspection was carried out by the defendant/Insurance Company. However, the Insurance Company repudiated the insurance claim stating that there was no record to show that the storm had occurred in the nearby area or vicinity, and therefore, the policy would not cover such losses. The plaintiff, therefore, approached the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad. 7. The defendant in written statement denied the occurrence of a storm on the date of alleged incident. It is stated there was only rain. The shed collapsed because of the fumes generated during manufacturing process wherein chemically hazardous and corrosive substances were used. There was no proper maintenance. For the above ( 5 ) FA-2267-2025 reasons, when the temperature was high, truss members of the furnace melted, as they were in a dilapidated condition. For these reasons, there was insufficient strength to hold the weight of the shed. 8. It is further stated that there is no news of such storm appeared in the standard newspapers. In the FIR, there is no loss shown to have been caused due to storm. The story of the storm is concocted story. So far as the extent of loss is concerned, it is denied that the losses were to the tune of Rs.1,87,00,000/-. It is also denied that the intimation was given to the Group Gram Panchayat Pangra and the Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health. Thus, the main ground is that the policy does not cover the incident. Lastly, it is submitted that the losses were assessed only to the extent of Rs.79,41,114/-. The claim was rightly repudiated etc. It is submitted that the plaint deserved to be dismissed. 9. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined three witnesses i.e. (i) Pradip s/o Madhukar Nijampurkar, (PW-1) the Director of Plaintiff, (ii) Sakharam Rambhau Divte, (PW-2) the then Gram Sevak, Group Gram Panchayat Pangra and Samsher Maheboob Pathan, (PW-3), News ( 6 ) FA-2267-2025 Reporter, resident of Pangra. The plaintiff relied upon the voluminous evidence through these witnesses. 10. The defendant examined Shankar Nathu Sangle (DW-1), the in- charge of Legal Hub of the defendant company, and Mr. Shrinivas Shankar Kutumbale (DW-2), a Structural Consultant and Engineer. Both the parties relied upon the Insurance Policy. The defendant relied upon the Preliminary Survey Report dated 18.07.2016, status report dated 28.07.2016 and Inspection Report made by Mr. Kutumbale on 26.09.2016. 11. The trial Court after assessing evidence and record, partly decreed the suit. The defendant is thus before this Court. 12. Smt. Rotte, learned Advocate for the appellant, vehemently argued that the present case is a case where the plaintiff has approached the learned trial Court with a concocted and afterthought story. The incident is not covered under the policy. The plaintiff failed to show that there was, in fact, a storm-like situation on the date of incident. It was the ( 7 ) FA-2267-2025 duty of the plaintiff to specifically prove that the incident took place because of the storm and the losses were suffered because of the same. She further argued that the learned trial Judge has committed an error in appreciating the evidence of record. No sufficient evidence is produced on record by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the specific case of the defendant. In any case, the loss was assessed only to the extent of Rs.79,41,114/- whereas, the Court has wrongly awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,94,361/-, which is exorbitant and excessive. The claim was rightly repudiated. She accepted the fact that, on the date of incident, the insurance contract was in force for the industrial shed. However, the said incident was not covered under the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy by relying upon Exclusion Clauses 4(b) and 6. She submitted that, to maintain the shed properly was the responsibility of the owner. Though the alleged incident occurred on 05.07.2016, immediately on receiving intimation, one Mr. Robert Rodrigues, a Surveyor and Loss Assessor, was sent for preliminary investigation. He immediately visited the site on 05.07.2016 and conducted a preliminary survey. She further invited attention to Clause ( 8 ) FA-2267-2025 7 which is at Exh. 85 i.e. Preliminary Survey Report. She further relied upon the Status Report prepared by one Mr. Navin Jain, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, at Exh.86, a Final Survey Report prepared by Navin Jain is at Exh. 87 and the Report prepared by one Mr. S. S. Kutumbale, Structural Engineer at Exh.88. There is no report from the Meteorological Department to show the occurrence of a storm. She made various submissions on the evidence of the witnesses, which have been discussed with foregoing paragraphs. 13. In support of her submission, she relied upon the following judgments. (i) Sri Venkateswara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr. [(2009) 8 SCC 507]. (ii) New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sri Buchiyyamma Rice Mill and Anr. [(2020) 12 SCC 105]. 14. Mr. Katneshwarkar, the learned Senior Advocate, vehemently opposes the Appeal. He submits that the policy is in existence since long. The job of the company is to collect the scrap and to manufacture iron ( 9 ) FA-2267-2025 sheets etc. for which furnace is used. The policy is for Rs.2,80,00,95,000/-. The damage was caused to sponge iron, which can be affected in such incidents. The premium of Rs.8,00,000/- was paid. Every year inspection is carried before issuing policy. It was open for the company to carry out the inspection before issuance of policy. Immediately after the incident, the intimation was given. Mr. Robert Rodrigues, the first surveyor, who visited the spot immediately is not examined by the defendant/Insurance Company. He submits that the plaintiff has proved the panchnama conducted by Gram Panchayat Pangra showing that there was a storm. The Police also conducted spot panchnama. All these are proved through the evidence of the plaintiff’s, witnesses. A meeting was conducted between the plaintiff and defendant and minutes were prepared. However, the same were not exhibited. He invited attention to the cross-examination of DW-2 Mr. Kutumbale. 15. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the following judgments: ( 10 ) FA-2267-2025 (i) Food Court the Company Garden Society Vs. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2907]; (ii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kiran Combers and Spinners [(2007) 1 SCC 368]. 16. In rebuttal, Smt. Rotte submitted that, no bills are produced to show that the material shown was lying in the factory premises. The quantum of loss therefore, cannot be determined. In the survey, the plaintiff participated and still no objection was raised. There is no report of any injuries to any employees when the incident took place. There is no complaint made to Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) and thus, the remedy is not availed and directly a Suit is filed. The Surveyor Mr. Kutumbale was not appointed by the Company. There is nothing on record to show that as to how he conducted the survey, that too 28 days after the incident etc. 17. Following points arises for consideration of this Court. (i) Whether the appellant has made out a case to show that the suit is wrongly decreed? ( 11 ) FA-2267-2025 (ii) Whether the trial Court has rightly directed to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,94,361/- to the plaintiff by the defendant? (iii) Whether the judgment and order passed by the trial Court needs to be interfered with? 18. In his evidence, PW-1 deposed about the incident and the intimation given of the incident. He proved the tender notice showing that the scrap was purchased, the assessment of loss, and the structural stability certificate issued by the Structural Engineer. He also referred to the report of Mr. Kutumbale and Mr. Navin Jain, stating that the wrong findings are recorded in the reports. The valuation of the shed and the material, the expenses incurred, cost of materials, the amount required for repair of machinery, the damage caused to stock and consultancy charges are not considered by the surveyor. The total claim of Rs.2,00,94,361/-. 19. In the cross-examination, he admitted that there is an arbitration clause in the policy. A representation was made to the General Manager (Arbitration), but he could not give any details about further progress. ( 12 ) FA-2267-2025 He further stated in the cross-examination that there are various other units of different companies in the vicinity. He could not state as to whether damage was caused to other sheds as well. He also stated that he could not state as to whether there is meteorological unit at Chitegaon. It is tried to be taken that the damage was not due to natural climate conditions. This witness proved the policy. 20. PW-2, Sakharam Diwate, Gram Sevak, Group Gram Panchayat Pangra, proved the panchnama showing that the damage was caused to the factory premises, and to some agricultural fields. He also stated that the information of the panchnama was given to the Tahsildar. In the cross-examination, it was tried to be taken that no prior permission was taken from the Tahsildar before drawing the panchnama. However, he stated that such permission is not required. 21. PW-3 Shamsher Pathan, Reporter, Newspaper Shalivahan Varta (Weekly), in his evidence stated that, the news item about storm was published in one weekly newspaper namely, Shalivahan Varta. In the ( 13 ) FA-2267-2025 said newspaper, a news was given of the storm and the damage caused to the plaintiff company. He stated that he happens to be an auditor of the said newspaper. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the said newspaper was started in the year 2010. However, the same was closed in covid-19 pandemic period. 22. DW-1 Shankar Sangle, In-charge of Legal Hub New India Assurance Co., stated in his evidence about the policy. He stated that though the intimation of loss was given to the defendant, the reason of cause of loss was not mentioned in the panchnama. On receipt of intimation, a spot survey was conducted by one Robert Rodrigues and company. It is stated in the report that insured did not know the cause of collapse of the shed. Therefore, Mr. Jain was appointed as a Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who is duly authorized by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) and is a Member of Indian Institute of Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors (IIISLA) as per provisions under Section 64UM of Insurance Act, 1938. Mr. Navin Jain did not find any signs of storm in the area and no sheets of adjoining ( 14 ) FA-2267-2025 shed were uprooted. Nearby trees within the plant premises also were not found to be fallen etc. He stated that the existing shed, where the steel melting work was carried out, was heavily corroded along with its trusses. The structure of adjoining shed was also corroded for want of maintenance, and it is on that basis, it was concluded that no storm took place in the area of plaintiff’s factory. There was only rain. He specifically deposed that, as per expert report, it was clearly concluded that no storm took place in the area of the plaintiff. 23. In the cross-examination, he accepted that the plaintiff had sustained loss. He disputed the quantum of loss caused. He accepted that generally defendant would not issue policy for structures in dilapidated or ruined condition. It is only on the satisfaction about condition of structure that the policy is issued. Before issuing a fresh policy, it is required to inspect the premises. He accepted that there was a valid policy on the date of renewal. The sum insured under the policy was Rs.2,80,95,000/- for location one and for location two Rs.2,00,00,000/-. The total sum insured of Rs.2,82,95,000/-. Presently ( 15 ) FA-2267-2025 was the case of policy of two crore. The incident took place at location two. 24. DW-2 Shrinivas Shankar Kutumbale, Structural Consultant and Engineer, stated in his evidence that, he observed that the chimney was located just by side of steel melting shop. Shed was standing intact and no damage was noticed. Another shed at a distance of about 50 meters was also standing intact. The shed of adjoining industry were intact. Trees and electric lines outside and inside the premises were intact. The RCC etc. were also intact. In the cross examination, he accepted the reports. He accepted that he visited the premises after one month i.e. on 05.07.2016 of happening of the incident. He accepted that he submitted the report on 22.09.2016. 25. On appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Judge has considered mainly that the incident had admittedly taken place. There is a loss suffered by the plaintiff due to the said incident. The plaintiff has proved that the incident took place because of the storm. So far as amount is concerned, the learned trial Judge has relied upon the oral ( 16 ) FA-2267-2025 and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff on record to establish the loss. While considering this aspect, the Court has not accepted that the loss was only to the extent of Rs.79,41,114/-, as stated by the expert in their reports. 26. This Court finds that the learned trial Judge has rightly considered that the incident took place because of the storm, as there is nothing on record to show that the incident took place due to bending of the trusses or corrosion of the iron angles of sheets. It is also rightly considered that height of the shed was 85 feet, based on the evidence of respondent in cross-examination. So far as finding on these aspects are concerned, this Court does not find that any case is made out calling for interference. The question is about the amount of compensation, the learned trial Judge has solely relied upon oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff. 27. So far as assessment of the loss by the expert is concerned, it is only the defendant who has submitted the experts report. The report of Mr. Navin Jain and S. S. Kutumbale, both have stated loss to be to the ( 17 ) FA-2267-2025 extent of Rs.79,41,114/-. PW-1 in order to prove the loss, has also given figures of the cost required for fabrication, erection and alignment, material purchase for reconstruction of building and machinery, the amount required for repair of machinery, damages to the stock etc. Further, it is considered that the losses are admitted by the defendant. In the pleadings, there is no specific denial that the losses are not to the extent of Rs.2,00,94,361/-. This aspect needs to be considered as to whether there is specific denial in the pleadings. 28. Paragraph No.11 of the written statement, in clear terms, stated the loss only to the extent of Rs.79,41,114/-. Once the same is denied, it was expected of the plaintiff to specifically prove the damage to the extent claimed. While calculating the loss, the plaintiff has also taken in consideration cost required for repairing etc. The insurance policy would cover only the damage/cause sustained by the plaintiff and would not cover further expenses. There is evidence of experts on assessment showing the damages to be Rs.79,41,114/-. These witnesses have been examined and cross-examined. It was for the plaintiff to bring on record ( 18 ) FA-2267-2025 specific material to show the actual damage caused as claimed. This Court does not find any sufficient material on record to prove the damage claim. On the contrary, the defendant has placed on record the reports prepared by experts showing the amount of damages. 29. The learned trial Judge has rightly concluded that Mr. Robert Rodrigues who had visited the spot at the earliest, ought to have been examined. An adverse inference is therefore rightly drawn. Provisions of Section 64 UM of the Insurance Company Act, 1938 pressed into service by the defendant. Sub-section (4) of Section 64UM reads as under: “(4). No claim in respect of a loss which has occurred in India and requiring to be paid or settled in India equal to or exceeding an amount specified in the regulations by the Authority in value on any policy of insurance, arising or intimated to an insurer at any time after the expiry of a period of one year from the commencement of the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 (5 of 2015), shall unless otherwise directed by the Authority, be admitted for payment or settled by the insurer unless he has obtained a report, on the loss that has occurred, from a person who holds a licence issued under this section to act as a surveyor or loss assessor (hereafter referred to as “approved surveyor or loss assessor”). Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the right of the insurer to pay or settle any claim at any amount different from the amount assessed by the approved surveyor or loss assessor.” ( 19 ) FA-2267-2025 30. It is submitted that though the surveyor has assessed the losses still the defendant is not liable to pay the entire amount assessed by the surveyor. 31. The plaintiff has vehemently argued that the second surveyor was appointed without any statutory provision and that his report cannot be relied upon. To counter the said argument, the defendant relied upon the judgment in the case of Shri Venkateswara Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr. (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment has held two things that, the insurer is not prohibited from appointing second or another surveyor for fresh estimation of loss; however, such appointment should not be made to obtain tailor-made report to the satisfaction of the insurer. Secondly, it is held that the surveyor’s report can be rejected by the insurer. It is further held that the assistance of surveyor while settling a claim is mandatory under the Act. It is however open for the insurer to accept the report or not to accept the report of surveyor. When it is found that the report is prepared in good faith, with due application of mind and in absence of any error or ( 20 ) FA-2267-2025 ill-motive, the insurance company cannot reject the report of surveyors. In such cases, the courts or the forums can certainly intervene if it finds that the rejection of the survey report is arbitrary or based on no acceptable reasons. It is further held that the appointment of surveyor is statutory in nature. They are link between the insurer and the insured for determination of settlement of the loss or damage. 32. This Court finds that, in the present case, the appointment of second surveyor cannot be doubted. The plaintiff has not shown that the surveyor’s report is motivated or is biased. At the same time, the defendant has not given any acceptable reason or the reasonable cause for not accepting the damage assessment given by the expert. It is seen that the second surveyor is appointed. The surveyor is even examined by the defendant as its witness and it is for this reason also, the report needs to be accepted, as there is nothing pointed out by the defendant not to believe the report. 33. So far as judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sri Buchiyyamma Rice Milll and Anr. (Supra) is concerned, ( 21 ) FA-2267-2025 in the said case, the policy was issued under Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy, covering specific risks in respect of plant and machinery. It was the case of the insurer that the boiler collapsed due to impact of a collision with a reversing lorry. The same was denied by the insurance company as the incident was unlikely to have taken place in the manner as claimed by the insured. The surveyor opined that the structural expert be called to ascertain the real cause of damage. It is thereupon further report was obtained from the structural expert. On submission of report, the insurer again obtained the opinion of an investigator. The claim was made before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC). The State Commission rejected the complaint. The NCDRC, in appeal, allowed the claim stating the reason that report of surveyor is submitted beyond the period of two years and in the breach of 2002 Regulations. The Court considered the necessity of appointing the second surveyor. In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the judgment in the case of Shri Venkateswara Syndicate (supra). On the facts of that case, it was held that the procedure followed by insurer was not designed to obtain a report which would ( 22 ) FA-2267-2025 suit the stand of the insurer. There was no malafide and in that case, the appeal filed by the insurance company was allowed. The Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the complaint holding the judgment of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC). 34. So far as judgment in the case of Food Court the Company Garden Society Vs. Universal Sompo General Insurance co. Ltd. And Ors. (supra) is concerned, the loss was caused due to snowfall. A defence was taken that the same would not fall under the damage caused by storm. It is held that the term “storm” cannot be given a restrictive meaning and would include events like extreme or unusually intense precipitation. Under such circumstances, the Court considered exclusion clause and found that such calamity is not specifically excluded and allowed the appeal of the insured. 35. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Kiran Combers and Spinners (supra), the building collapsed due to floodwaters entering the building. The defence of the insurance company that the policy did not cover subsidence (gradual caving in or ( 23 ) FA-2267-2025 sinking of area of land) is not tenable. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered Clause 8 of the Exclusions in the policy. It was held that the Exclusion Clause did not contain any reference to subsidence. Clause 8(b) was only to the extent of typhoon, storm, cyclone, tempest, hurricane, tornado flood and inundation. 36. In the policy of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., clause 6 reads as under: “6). STORM, CYCLONE, TYPHOON, TEMPEST, HURRICANE, TORNADO, FLOOD & INUNDATION:- Loss, destruction or damage directly caused by Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood or Inundation excluding those resulting from earthquake, Volcanic eruption or other convulsions of nature. (whenever earthquake cover is given as an “add on cover” the words “excluding those resulting from earthquake volcanic eruption or other convulsions of nature” shall stand deleted.) . Coverage is provided for the losses due to destruction or damage caused by storm, cyclone, typhoon, tempest, hurricane, tornado, flood or inundation excluding those resulting from earthquake, volcanic eruption or other convulsions of nature. The said clause clearly provides that loss, destruction or damage caused by the storm, cyclone etc. It is nothing to specifically indicate that ( 24 ) FA-2267-2025 there is no storm. Thus, looking to the clause, it does not find that present claim fall under Exclusion Clause. As already observed, there is no case that the claim is made only to grab the amount. 37. In the present case, this Court finds that the incident is not disputed. In the evidence of Mr. Shrinivas Shankar Kutumbale (DW-2), it has come on record that there “may be a storm or may not be a storm”. It is not specifically denied that there was no storm. Secondly, it has come on record in the evidence of defendant’s witness that while issuing the policy, inspection is required. Normally inspection is conducted in the premises and it is thereafter the policy is taken. There is nothing on record to show that during the inspection, it was found that the pieces were corroded or that there was insufficient strength to hold the structure (shed). There is also no case that the plaintiff has raised the false claim just to grab the insurance amount. The only defence is that there was no storm. This Court finds that such defence cannot be accepted in absence of any specific evidence. Plaintiff has clearly made out a case that there was some incident in which the shed collapsed. The ( 25 ) FA-2267-2025 defence could not prove that it was because of the corrosion or the manufacturing process, etc. This Court has seen the Exclusion Clause. Present case would not fall under Exclusion Clause considering judgment in the case of Food Court the Company Garden Society (supra). 38. So far as quantum is concerned, this Court has already discussed that the plaintiff though has produced material it is not sufficient to prove the damage to the extent as claimed. On the contrary, there is experts evidence led by the defence which was sufficient to arrive at the conclusion of the amount of loss. Nothing contrary has been produced on record. The trial Court has accepted the claim of the plaintiff without therebeing sufficient evidence. This Court thus finds that the amount of Rs.79,41,114/- would be appropriate amount towards damages. There is nothing to show that the report is malafide or otherwise. This Court finds no difficult in accepting the damages to the extent of Rs.79,41,114/-. This Court thus hold that, to that extent the decree needs to be modified. Hence, the following order: ( 26 ) FA-2267-2025 ORDER (i) First Appeal is partly allowed. Decree is modified. (ii) The appellant/orig. defendant is directed to pay Rs. 79,41,114/- to the Respondent/orig. plaintiff with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till actual realization of the entire amount. (iii) Decree be drawn up accordingly. (iv) In view of disposal of First Appeal, pending Civil Applications, if any, do not survive and the same stand disposed off accordingly. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] 1. At this stage, learned Advocate for the Appellant seeks continuation of interim order for a period of six weeks from today. 2. The said prayer is opposed by the learned Advocate for the Respondent. 3. Considering that the stay is already in operation, we hereby extend the same for a period of six weeks from today. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] D.A.ETHAPE