Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: MHCC010019572018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.31 OF 2018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1319 OF 2017
Raju Safety Products
A proprietary concern through its Proprietor
Sunil Malsidha Shinde Having his address at
312, Abubakar Chawl, Bagicha,
Dharavi Main Road, Dharavi,
Mumbai – 400 017. ...Plaintiffs.
V/s.
Hindustan Construction Company Limited,
having, registered address At No.27-30, 11th
floor, Hinon House, LBS Marg,
Vikhroli (West),
Mumbai – 400 083.
Through its Managing Director and also the
Company Secretary.
....Defendants.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv Mr. Hemant Hasnale for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Ranak Parekh for defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. R.K. KSHIRSAGAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 24th September, 2021
-- 1 of 5 --
Summons for Judgment 31 of 2018 .. J/2 .. Judgment
JUDGMENT
1. The present Summons for Judgment is taken out by the
plaintiff seeking the decree of sum of Rs.7,34,117 alongwith further
interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till its
realization.
2. It was submitted by the plaintiff that he filed a suit for
recovery of the amount of Rs.7,34,117/- (Rs. Seven Lakhs Thirty Four
Thousand One Hundred Seventeen only). The defendant has no valid
of bonafide defense. There are no triable issues. The defendant only
appeared with a view to delay the passing of decree. The plaintiff is a
small manufacturer. The defendant raised various purchase orders for
purchasing safety materials of various kinds. After the purchase order
the plaintiff supplied the material. However, the cheque issued by the
defendant were dishonoured. Despite of various demand the defendant
failed to repay the same. The plaintiff therefore issued legal notice but
the defendant failed to repay the same. The plaintiff therefore, filed the
present suit for the payment due for the goods supplied to the
defendants. The plaintiff stated that he is a small businessman and he
invested in the material supplied to the defendant. The defendant failed
and neglected to pay the amount and therefore the Summons for
Judgment be made absolute.
3. The defendant filed reply. The defendant denied the
contention of the plaintiff. It was submitted by the defendant that the
plaintiff calculated the amount wrongfully. The Notice issued by the
plaintiff was false. No liability arises on defendant. The suit filed by
-- 2 of 5 --
Summons for Judgment 31 of 2018 .. J/3 .. Judgment
plaintiff is without any merits. The suit itself is time barred, and
therefore liable to be set aside. The defendant has substantial bonafide
defenses. There are several triable issues, both on law and facts, which
require extensive evidence. The present suit does not fall under Order
37 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore leave be granted to the
defendant to defend the suit.
4. Heard Learned Advocate for plaintiff. The defendant and
his counsel remained absent and failed to argue. Perused documents
filed by both the parties. The plaintiff is praying for decree for the
amount due from the defendant. The defendant stated that suit is
barred by Limitation and therefore, it is required to be dismissed. The
defendant also raised several triable issues which requires
consideration. The Learned Advocate for plaintiff submitted that the
Advocate for defendant failed to argue on Summons for Judgment.
However, he filed reply and on affidavit he stated about his contention.
The issues raised by the defendant in his reply shows that there are
several triable issues which requires adjudication on merits. It seems
that huge amount is prayed to be decreed against the defendant and
therefore an opportunity must be given to the defendant to defend
himself on merits. It seems that it would not be appropriate to impose
any condition in order to grant leave to defend. The plaintiff is if
succeed can be compensated. Hence, it would be appropriate to grant
unconditional leave to defendant to defend himself in order to decide
the matter on merits. Hence, the order:
ORDER
1. Unconditional leave is granted to the defendant to defend the
Suit No.1319 of 2017.
2. Defendant is directed to file Written Statement on record till next
date.
-- 3 of 5 --
Summons for Judgment 31 of 2018 .. J/4 .. Judgment
3. Summons for Judgment no. 31 of 2018 is disposed off.
4. Costs in cause.
5. Order is dictated and pronounced in open Court.
Matter adjd for compliance to 18-11-2021.
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 24-09-2021 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
Dictated on : 24-09-2021
Transcribed on : 27-09-2021
checked on : 27-09-2021
Signed on : 27-09-2021
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 4 of 5 --
Summons for Judgment 31 of 2018 .. J/5 .. Judgment
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
27.09.2021 at 05.20 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME (VARSHA U. PAWAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Smt.R.K.Kshirsagar
(COURT ROOM NO.13)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/
order
24.09.2021
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 27.09.2021
Judgment/order uploaded on 27.09.2021
-- 5 of 5 --