Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: Summary Judgment No.100002 / 2020, Zale - Samarth
Order (Exh.10) 1 of 5
City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai
Court Room No. 31
(District Judge : Vijay S. Hingne, LL. M.)
Summary Judgment Filed : 15.01.2020
Arguments Heard : 01.08.2023
Decided on : 23.08.2023
Duration : 3 Y, 7 M, 9 Days
MHCC01-002293-2019
Exhibit No. 10
Summary Judgment No. 100002 / 2020
in
Commercial Suit No. 100008 / 2019
Plaintiff : Zale Shipping & Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd.
VERSUS
Defendants 1 M/s. Samarth Impex
2 Deepa Ashok Jadhav
Appearances
Plaintiff
: Adv. Shri C. K. Mhatre
Adv. Shri Shrirang K. Paranjape
Defendants
: Adv. Shri Prakash B. Pawar
Summary Judgment
************************************************************************
ORDER
(Pronounced on this 23rd Day of August, 2023)
Plaintiff has preferred application for Summary
Judgment.
-- 1 of 5 --
Summary Judgment No.100002 / 2020, Zale - Samarth
Order (Exh.10) 2 of 5
2) Zale Shipping & Logistics Services, Ghatkopar, Mumbai
(hereinafter,
Plaintiff) is company providing transport services
within and outside India.
M/s. Samarth Impex, Dombivali (E), Dist. Thane is the
proprietary firm of defendant No. 2 Deepa Ashok Jadhav
(hereinafter,
Defendants). It deals in business of import and
export of agricultural products.
Case of plaintiff :
3) On 29.04.2016, plaintiff shipped consignment of 2 X 20
ft. container containing Parboiled Rice of defendant from Kolkata
Port to Tincan Island Port (Nigeria). However, on 20.05.2016,
while consignment was at Singapore Port, defendant No. 2 asked
plaintiff to bring the container back to Kolkata Port. Accordingly,
plaintiff brought container back to Kolkata Port and transported
said Parboiled Rice to Burdman i.e. original suppliers address.
4) Regarding said transport, plaintiff generated 4 Invoices
worth . 11,60,432/- towards freight charges, clearing charges,	₹
detention charges at Singapore Port and rerouting charges from
Singapore Port to Kolkata, transportation to original supplier
Burdman. Against said Invoices, defendant issued two Cheques
bearing No. 686240 Dt. 10.11.2016 for
.	₹ 2,00,000/- and Cheque
No. 686241 Dt. 10.12.2016 for . 2,06,996/-. However, those	₹
Cheques were dishonoured. As on 31.12.2018, defendants are
liable to make payment of . 6,39,176/-. Hence, the Suit.	₹
Summary Judgment No. 100002 / 2020 :
5) As per plaintiff, documents filed by him are sufficient to
prove his case. Against it, defendants do not have any triable
issue. Hence, Summons for Judgment, needs to be allowed and
Suit needs to be decreed.
Reply by defendants :
6) Defendant has raised numerous issues which will require
-- 2 of 5 --
Summary Judgment No.100002 / 2020, Zale - Samarth
Order (Exh.10) 3 of 5
adjudication. Hence, defendant is entitled for leave, to defend the
Suit.
Points for determination :
7) Perused record. Heard Adv. Shri C. K. Mhatre with
Adv. Shrirang K. Paranjape for plaintiff. Heard Adv. Shri
Prakash B. Pawar for defendants. Points for determination,
findings and reasons are as follows :
Points
Findings
1. Whether by this Summary
Judgment, the plaintiff is entitled
for Decree?.................................. In the Negative.
2. Whether defendants satisfy that
they have substantial case for
leave to defend?.....................….. As per final order.
3. What order? …………………… As per final order.
R E A S O N S
Reasons as to Point No. 1 to No. 3 :
8) Plaintiff has claimed recovery of . 6,39,176/-.	₹
9) Defendants admitted that, she has availed transportation
services of plaintiff for export of Parboiled Rice from Kolkata
Port to Tincan Island Port (Nigeria). Defendant also admitted
that, she asked plaintiff for rerouting goods back to India.
10) However, defendant came with case that, because of
inefficiency of plaintiff, containers were unnecessarily lying at
Kolkata Port. Thereby, there was deficiency in the services of
plaintiff. Plaintiff has not mentioned date-wise entry in Plaint,
regarding cost of calling back of containers. Said details are
omitted with intention to create misunderstanding and ambiguity
in transaction. Defendants have raised defense regarding
concealment of charges as well as regarding deficiency of
services. During rerouting, plaintiff had suppressed material facts
-- 3 of 5 --
Summary Judgment No.100002 / 2020, Zale - Samarth
Order (Exh.10) 4 of 5
and has levied extra charges.
11) It is also case of defendants that, she has already made
payment vide ICICI Bank Receipt No. 114 Dt. 07.07.2016 for .	₹
1,50,000/- and No. 177 Dt. 18.08.2016 for . 6,00,000/-. Thus,	₹
defendants had paid total of . 7,50,000/-. Defendants had	₹
already paid export shipment charges, clearing and forwarding
charges to the tune of . 2,48,641/-. It was plaintiff, who failed to	₹
render better services. Therefore, defendants are not liable to
make any payment.
12) Commercial transactions are heavily depending on
efficiency of services. In that backdrop, defendants had raised
triable issue, which will require adjudication. Hence, plaintiff will
have to show through his evidence that, he has provided efficient
and proper services. It is only thereafter, on the strength of
evidence of plaintiff and its cross examination by defendants,
dispute can be adjudicated in true sense and in the interest of
parties. Therefore, application for Summary Judgment cannot be
considered.
Leave to defend :
13) It is admitted fact that, plaintiff had availed services and
defendant has also directed plaintiff for rerouting the
consignment. In that backdrop, defendants can be granted
conditional leave to defend. However, perusal shows that,
defendants had already filed their Written Statement on
15.10.2019 before my Learned Predecessor and it was taken on
record as Exh. 4 & 5. Therefore, now no Order regarding
conditional leave to defend can be passed, as Written Statement is
already on record. Considering all the facts, Hence, following
order is passed :
ORDER
1. Summary Judgment No. 100002 / 2020 stands rejected.
2. Proceeding of Summons for Judgment No. 100002 of
-- 4 of 5 --
Summary Judgment No.100002 / 2020, Zale - Samarth
Order (Exh.10) 5 of 5
2020 is closed.
3. Order dictated and pronounced in Open Court.
4. Both sides be informed about their right to challenge
this Order and period of limitation for the same.
5. The record of Summons for Judgment shall be part and
parcel of the main Commercial Suit No. 100008 / 2019.
Mumbai
Dated : 23.08.2023 (Vijay S. Hingne)
District Judge, Court Room No.31
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Greater Mumbai
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS
-- 5 of 5 --