Order 3

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: Review Petition No. 100117 / 2022 Phoenix – Canara Bank Order (Exh.30) 1 of 4
City Civil and Sessions Court, Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
Court Room No. 31 – Commercial Court
(Additional District Judge : Vijay S. Hingne, LL. M.)
MHCC010066672022
Review Petition Filed : 21.06.2022
Arguments closed : 07.11.2024
Decided on : 06.01.2025
Duration : 02 Y 06 M 16 D
Exhibit No.30
Review Petition No. 100117 / 2022
from
Commercial Suit No. 100274 / 2021
Petitioner (Defendant) : M/s. Phoenix Travels
VERSUS
Respondent (Plaintiff) : Canara Bank
Appearances
Petitioner (Defendant)
: Adv. Shri Satish Nikhar
Respondent (Plaintiff)
: Adv. Fatima Lakdawala
Adv. Nazma Shaikh
Petition for Review of Order Dt. 30.03.2022
************************************************************************
ORDER
(Pronounced on this 6th Day of January, 2025)
Defendant / Phoenix Travels (Review Petitioner) is
seeking Review of the Order Dt. 30.03.2022 passed in
Commercial Suit No. 100274 / 2021, whereby, Counter Claim of
defendant (Exh.16) was rejected by my Learned Predecessor.
-- 1 of 4 --
Review Petition No. 100117 / 2022 Phoenix – Canara Bank Order (Exh.30) 2 of 4
Case of Plaintiff
2) Canara Bank, Mumbai, Maharashtra, had preferred
Commercial Suit No. 100274 / 2021 against M/s. Phoenix
Travels, proprietary concern of Hanan Pagarkar.
3) According to Bank, on 22.07.2015, Bank had
sanctioned credit facility of .	₹ 9,29,000/- to Phoenix for purchase
of vehicle Nissan Sunny LXD. However, Phoenix defaulted
repayment, compelling bank to file Short Cause Suit No. 2742 /
2018 for recovery of .	₹ 7,51,869.87/- with interest @ 10.05 % p.
a. plus 2 % Penal Interest.
4) In said Suit, Phoenix, on 12.03.2021, filed Written
Statement (Exh.7). On same date, it also filed Counter Claim
(Exh.8).
5) My Learned Predecessor vide Order Dt. 30.03.2022
observed that, in Counter Claim, Phoenix has not mentioned the
claim amount, has not valued the Suit, has not paid the Court
Fees and has not annexed necessary documents. Hence, the
Assistant Registrar has raised objection to that effect.
Accordingly, Counter Claim was rejected and was treated as
Written Statement.
Review Petition :
6) Aggrieved by Order Dt. 30.03.2022, Phoenix, on
21.06.2022 preferred the Review Petition. It is the case of
Phoenix that, it has already produced relevant documents for
verification on 26.04.2022. Hence, Review Petition be allowed.
Perusal of roznama from Dt. 09.03.2023 shows that,
Review Petition is not been replied by bank. Thereafter, bank also
did not took any steps for arguments. Hence, Review Petition is
taken for Order on the face of record.
Perused Written Arguments filed by Phoenix at Exh. 29
(Dt. 09.08.2024).
-- 2 of 4 --
Review Petition No. 100117 / 2022 Phoenix – Canara Bank Order (Exh.30) 3 of 4
Points for determination :
7) Heard Adv. Satish Nikhar for Phoenix. Perused Record.
Points for determination, findings and reasons are as follows :
Points
Findings
1 Is Phoenix entitled for relief of
review of Order Dt. 30.03.2022?….. In the Negative.
2 What Order? ……………………… As per final order.
R E A S O N S
8) Sec. 114 of the Code provides for Review, While Order
47 of the Code provides grounds for Review as :
(1) discovery by the applicant of new and important
matter or evidence which after the exercise of due
diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be
produced by him at the time when the decree was
passed or order made.
(2) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record.
(3) for any other sufficient reason.
Reasons as to Point No. 1 to No. 3 :
9) Perusal of Order Dt. 30.03.2022 shows that, Counter
Claim was rejected for non compliance of proper valuation, non
payment of Court Fees, absence of Claim Amount and
documents.
Any Counter Claim, which lacks these details, cannot be
accepted by the Court. Therefore, there is no reason to intervene
in the Order Dt. 30.03.2022. Hence, following Order is passed :
ORDER
1. Review Petition No. 100117 / 2022, Phoenix Travels
Vs. Canara Bank, is rejected.
2. Costs in cause.
3. Order pronounced in Open Court.
4. Parties be informed about its right to challenge this
-- 3 of 4 --
Review Petition No. 100117 / 2022 Phoenix – Canara Bank Order (Exh.30) 4 of 4
judgment and period of limitation for it.
5. After compliance and period of Appeal, Shirestedar and
AS to consign Record of the Suit, to Record Room.
6. Commercial Suit No. 100274 / 2021 to proceed further.
Mumbai
Dated : 06.01.2025 (Vijay S. Hingne)
Additional District Judge,
Court Room No.31 – Commercial Court,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS
-- 4 of 4 --