Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 Summons for Judgment No.175/18
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL C0URT AT BOMBAY
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.175 OF 2018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.335 OF 2018
(CNR No.)
(Under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure Code
1908)
M/s. Leo Chemo Plast Pvt. Ltd.,
A Private Limited Company, incorporated
under the provisions of the
Indian Companies Act, 1956,
having its registered ofce situated at
B/126, Ghatkopar Industrial Estate,
Off. Lal Bahadur Shashtri Marg,
Ghatkopar (W),
Mumbai – 400 086.
Through its authorized representative
Shri Chirag Damji Kotecha. ....Plaintif
Versus
M/s. Bal Pharma Ltd.,
A limited company incorporated under
the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956,
having its registered ofce situated at
5th floor, Laxminarayan complex,
No.10/1, Palace Road,
Bangalore – 560 052.
Karnataka.
Factory at :
Plot No.61-B,
Bommasandra Industrial Area,
Bangaluru – 560 099. ….Defendant
Appearance:-
Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the Plaintif.
Mr. Akshay Jadhav, Advocate for the Defendant.
-- 1 of 6 --
2 Summons for Judgment No.175/18
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. S.G. SHAIKH.
(C.R. NO.59).
DATE : 15th February, 2020.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in Open Court.)
1. The plaintiff has brought this Summons for
Judgment and thereby directing the defendant to pay
amount of Rs.5,02,440/- with interest @ 21% per annum
from the date of the suit till its realization.
2. Perused the documents on record. Heard
advocates of the parties at the length.
3. The defendant appeared on Summons for
Judgment and fled reply/leave to defend within limitation
on the principle reason that there is no written contract
between him and the plaintiff, there is a dispute as to rate
of interest, tax invoice is not signed by the defendant,
cheques issued by the defendant are not encashed by the
plaintiff, there is issue of jurisdiction and there is no
resolution for appointment of authorized signatory to
appear in this matter.
4. The defendant has to prayed for leave to
defend on the following reasons mainly :
i There is no written contract between him and the
plaintiff,
-- 2 of 6 --
3 Summons for Judgment No.175/18
ii There is a dispute as to rate of interest, tax
invoice is not signed by the defendant,
iii Cheques issued by the defendant are not
encashed by the plaintiff,
iv There is issue of jurisdiction,
v There is no resolution for appointment of
authorized signatory to appear in this matter.
5. It appears from the reply of the defendant that
he has not disputed the delivery of the goods to him and
liability of principal amount of Rs.4,42,500/-.
6. The question as to whether, there is written
contract or not, dispute as to rate of interest and
signature on tax invoice, non encashment of cheques
issued by the defendant, issue of jurisdiction and proper
authorization on the part of the plaintiff are probable and
plausible defences.
7. This Court neither intend to comment on the
merits of the case as this is not the stage of appreciation
of evidence. But this case being a case based on
contract, it becomes necessary to generally assess the
strength of contract on the basis of documents on the
test of basis laws. It is also necessary to adjudicate the
case on the basis of evidence as to fnd out as to whether
-- 3 of 6 --
4 Summons for Judgment No.175/18
there was a written contract about the price of the goods
and defendant has confrmed its liability.
8. In the opinion of this court, whether the plaintiff
is entitled to recovery of amount as claimed is the triable
issue in this suit and this issues can not be brushed aside
on the procedure of summary suit.
9. In this background, it is held that defendant
have made out a case to allow them to leave to defend
this suit. Defendant has plausible defence. Therefore, the
defendant should be allowed leave to defend. However, if
the defendant fails to prove the defence, it will have to
pay the amount claimed to the plaintiff, Therefore, in
order to curtail the possibility of any relief from
defendant's side, this court desire to put the condition on
the defendant to deposit 50% of principle amount of
Rs.17,91,000/- which comes around Rs.2,21,250/-. The
said amount shall be deposited by the defendant on or
before next date. In consequence the Summons for
Judgment is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following
order is passed.
ORDER
1. Summons for Judgment No.175 of 2018 is
dismissed.
2. Defendant allowed to defend the suit on the
condition that it shall deposit amount of
Rs.2,21,250/- on or before next date and fle
their written statement within four weeks
-- 4 of 6 --
5 Summons for Judgment No.175/18
from the date of this order.
3. Costs in cause.
4. Summons for Judgment No.175 of 2018 is
disposed off accordingly.
(Smt. S.G. Shaikh)
Date : 15/02/2020 Ad-hoc Judge,
City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
.
Dictated on : 15.02.2020
Transcribed on : 15.02.2020
Signed on : 15.02.2020
-- 5 of 6 --
6 Summons for Judgment No.175/18
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE TIME STENOGRAPHER NAME
15.02.2020 5.45 p.m. Mr. Tushar P. Kuwar
Name of the Judge H.H.J. SABIHA G. SHAIKH.
Ad-hoc Judge.
(Court Room No.59)
Date of pronouncement of
Order
15.02.2020
Order signed by P.O. on 15.02.2020
Order uploaded on 15.02.2020
-- 6 of 6 --