Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: SJ NO.142/2014 IN SU.4493/2013 1
CNR.NO.MHCC010041282018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.142 OF 2014
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.4493 OF 2013
(UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE )
Mr.Krishna Anant Deshmukh
House No.202, Shiv Riddhi Lok Kailash(A1)
CHS, Jatashankar Dosa Road,
Mulund(West),Mumbai 400 080 ...Plaintiff
Versus
1. Pinnacle Infrastructure International Pvt.Ltd.
A207, 2 nd floor, Hermes Atrium,
Sector 11,CBD Belapur
Navi Mumbai 400 614
2. Managing Director,
Pinnacle Infrastructure International Pvt.Ltd.
A207, 2 nd floor, Hermes Atrium,
Sector 11,CBD Belapur
Navi Mumbai 400 614 ...Defendants
Appearances:
Ld. Adv. Mr.Sunil Karath for Plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. S.A.Bhagwat for Defendants.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT.SHAYANA V PATIL
COURT ROOM NO.14
DATED : 26th June 2019
ORDER
This is suit under order XXXVII of CPC for recovery of suit
claim of Rs. 16,11,523.17ps from the defendant.
-- 1 of 4 --
SJ NO.142/2014 IN SU.4493/2013 2
2. The plaintiff has contended that he was appointed by
defendant No.1 company by appointment letter dated 29/06/2012 with
effect from 01/07/2012 with assured salary of Rs.1,12,000/ p.m. Thus,
house rent allowance, special allowance, variable pay etc. total gross
salary being 2,69,075/p.m. It is further submitted that however, the
services are terminated by email dated 10/06/2013 informing the
plaintiff that organization is continuously going through a tough phase
in terms of liquidity. It is submitted that the termination was unilateral
. The alternate proposal was given by defendant which was unfair and
unreasonable. The plaintiff issued the notices for recovery of salary
which has remained unpaid, it being total dues Rs.16,11,523.17ps.
however, the defendant company failed to pay the same, hence, the
suit.
3. The roznama reveals that defendant had appeared in the suit and
the plaintiff had tendered the draft summons for judgment on
21/02/2014 itself and the copy of it was served on defendant on the
same date before the court. The noting dated 08/07/2014 reveals that
advocate for defendant was present and he tendered the reply to
summons for judgment which was taken on record and matter was
adjourned to 14/08/2014 for rejoinder. Said summons for judgment
was numbered as 142/2014 as it is described in roznama dated
14/08/2014 . As such, it is evident from record that affidavit in reply
dated 08/07/2014 of Pavan Mukesh Kaher/defendant no.2 is already
placed on record. Under such circumstances, the noting dated
18/01/2019 that "defendant has not filed reply to Summons for
Judgment within time" is apparently wrong and therefore the directions
dated 18/01/2019 that "summons for judgment proceeded without
-- 2 of 4 --
SJ NO.142/2014 IN SU.4493/2013 3
reply" would not be maintained.
4. Under such circumstances, it is apparent that the defendant has
already filed reply to Summons for Judgment and sought leave to
defend thereby. Moreover, the advocate for defendant has advanced
oral arguments. It is also evident that the noting dated 29/04/2015
reveals that advocate for defendant informed that defendant has wound
up and official liquidator is appointed. Accordingly chamber summons
No.415/2016 was taken out for amendment of plaint and it was
allowed or by order dated 05/08/2016 whereby amendment for
deleting the name of defendant no.1 and replacing the same by official
liquidator is carried out. As such, the summons for judgment remained
pending hearing through out such period.
5. Admittedly, it is a summary suit and the decree would follow if
the defendant does not apply for leave to defend. It can be seen that in
present suit the defendant has already placed the affidavit in reply in
2014 itself which discloses the facts to indicate that the defendant has
substantial defence to raise in respect of the suit claim and liability of
defendant to pay the same. Any part of the suit claim is not admitted by
the defendant. Under such circumstances, it is necessary to grant the
conditional leave to defence as follows, hence the order as follows.
ORDER
1. Conditional leave is granted to the defendant to defend the suit
on depositing 50% of suit claim within 2 months from the date of this
order and to file the written statement within one month after such
deposit.
2. On failure of defendant to deposit the amount within prescribed
-- 3 of 4 --
SJ NO.142/2014 IN SU.4493/2013 4
time the plaintiff shall be at liberty to get the decree for suit claim.
3. Summons for Judgment No.142/2014 stands disposed of .
(SHAYANA V PATIL )
Judge,
Dated : 26/06/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 26/06/2019
Transcribed on : 26/06/2019
Signed on : 28/06/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload
Date
Upload Time Name of Stenographer
29/06/2019 2.20p.m. Mrs.J.V.Pawar
Name of the Judge (With
Court Room No.)
HHJ Smt.Shayana Patil (CR 14)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
26/06/2019
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed
by P.O. on
26/06/2019
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
uploaded on
29/06/2019
-- 4 of 4 --