Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: MHCC010012122022
CNR NO. MHCC010012122022
EXH.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.52 OF 2022
SUMMARY SUIT NO.4484 OF 2011
The Karnataka Bank ...Plaintiffs.
V/s.
Alok S. Sharma and Ors. ...Defendants.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv. Mr. Ashish Shasheedharan for Plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Ms. Juhi Pitale for defendant No.3.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. R.K. KSHIRSAGAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 16th November, 2022
ORDER
1. The present Summons for Judgement is taken out by the
plaintiff. It was submitted by the plaintiff that the plaintiff Bank is
incorporated under the Companies Act and carries out business of
giving finance on loan. The plaintiff Bank sanctioned a loan to
-- 1 of 5 --
SJ 52 of 2022 .. J/2 .. in Suit 4484 of 2011
defendant No.1 and 2 for purchase of vehicle. The defendant No.1
and 2 executed all the requisite documents. The defendant No.3 is the
authorized dealer who is selling the vehicles. The defendant No.1 and 2
defaulted in the repayment of the loan amount. The plaintiff issued
Notice to them but the defendant no.1 and 2 failed to pay the loan
amount. The defendant No.3 made certain payment but further
discontinued the payment. The plaintiff by issuing legal notice called
upon the defendants to repay the loan but the defendants failed to
repay the same. The defendants failed and neglected to make the
payment and therefore, plaintiff filed the present suit. The plaintiff
submitted that the defendant No.3 filed false appearance and therefore
they are not entitled for any leave to defend the suit and hence
Summons for Judgment be made absolute.
2. The defendant No.3 filed reply to the Summons for
Judgement and submitted that the defendant No.3 Company is not
concerned with claim of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.3 is neither a
borrower nor a guarantor and had also not signed any loan documents
and therefore, the suit is not maintainable against them. The defendant
No.3 has no liability. The defendant is only authorized dealer having
various sisters Company. The vehicles were given in the regular course
of business and there is no liability of defendant No.3 and hence there
are several issues arising in respect of the same. Hence, unconditional
leave to defend be granted to the defendants.
3. Heard the Learned Advocate for plaintiffs and defendants.
Also perused the written submission on behalf of the defendant No.3.
The perusal of the Summons for Judgment and the reply shows that the
plaintiff Bank lent a loan to defendant No.1 and 2 for purchase of the
-- 2 of 5 --
SJ 52 of 2022 .. J/3 .. in Suit 4484 of 2011
vehicles. Further the defendant No.1 and 2 failed to repay the loan.
The perusal of record and the proceedings of plaintiff shows that a
criminal complaint was also pending in respect of the present suit
transaction. The defendant No.3 contended that the employees of
defendant No.3 were in the habit of forging the documents and after
forging the documents they obtained loan. The defendant No.3 was
also victim to the fraud played by them. The Advocate for defendant
No.3 filed the copy of order passed by the Special Judge by CBI.
Considering the issues raised by the defendant No.3, it seems that the
defendant No.3 should be provided with an opportunity to defend
himself. The defendant No.3 raised issue which are substantial in
nature and thus will require evidence on merits. In order to provide an
opportunity to defendant No.3 the leave to defend should be granted to
the defendant No.3. Also if leave to defend is not granted to defendant
No.3, the defendant No.3 will suffer serious prejudice whereas no such
harm will cause to the plaintiff. As per the settled principal of law, the
defence even if is plausible; leave to defend ought to be granted to the
defendant. And therefore, leave to defend is granted to the defendant
No.3.
4. Considering the nature of defence raised by the defendant
No.3 and considering the facts of the matter, it would be appropriate to
grant unconditional leave to defendant No.3 to defend the suit. I,
therefore, proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Unconditional Leave is granted to defendant no.3 to defend the
suit.
2. Defendant no.3 shall file his written statement on next date.
-- 3 of 5 --
SJ 52 of 2022 .. J/4 .. in Suit 4484 of 2011
3. The Summons for Judgment No.52 of 2022 is disposed off
accordingly.
4. Parties to bear their own costs.
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 16112022 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
Dictated on : 16112022
Transcribed on : 21112022
checked on : 22112022
Signed on : 22112022
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 4 of 5 --
SJ 52 of 2022 .. J/5 .. in Suit 4484 of 2011
ERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
22.11.2022 at 03.34 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(VARSHA U. PAWAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge ( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
16.11.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 22.11.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 22.11.2022
-- 5 of 5 --