Skip to main content
Court Order

Final Order 1

CNR MHCC01007883201914 Mar 2022
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Final Order 1 · 14 Mar 2022 · CNR MHCC010078832019

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: MHCC010078832019
EXH.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.209 OF 2019
SUMMARY SUIT NO.2913 OF 2013
M/s. Kimberley Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
...Plaintiff.
V/s.
Oriental Trimex Ltd.
....Defendants.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv. Mr. Aniket Patil for Plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Swatesh Tripati for defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. R.K. KSHIRSAGAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 14th March, 2022
ORDER
1. The present Summons for Judgment is taken out by the
plaintiff. It was submitted that he had filed a suit against the defendant
for recovery of the amount of Rs.13,11,061/ alongwith further interest.
Pursuant to the purchase order the plaintiff sold and delivered the
-- 1 of 4 --
SJ 209 of 2019 .. J/2 .. in Suit 1923-2013
goods to defendant. The defendant accepted the goods but thereafter
failed to pay the amount. Inspite of receiving notice, the defendant
failed to pay the amount. The plaintiff therefore, filed the suit for
recovery of the due amount. The defendant filed his appearance only
to delay the matter. He is having no defence on merits and therefore
the Summons for Judgment be issued.
2. The defendant filed reply and prayed for leave to defend. It
was submitted that this Court is having no territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the present suit. The defendant has wrongly invoked the
jurisdiction of this Court by making false statement. The plaintiff is not
having any cause of action. There is no signature of defendant on the
invoices and the plaintiff unilateraly confirmed the invoices. There is
no written contract binding on the defendants. There are triable issues
and therefore unconditional leave to defend be granted to the
defendant.
3. The Learned Advocate for plaintiff filed written notes of
argument. The defendant failed to argue on Summons for Judgment.
After going through the Summons for Judgment of the plaintiff and
reply of defendant, it seems that there was a transaction between the
plaintiff and defendant. The defendant allegedly accepted the goods
sold and supplied by plaintiff. The defendant raised various issues
which will require trial. The defendant raised legal issues which can be
decided only after leave to defend is given to the defendant. In order to
decide the matter on merit it is necessary to grant leave to defend to
defendant. The defendant has raised issues regarding territorial
jurisdiction of this Court and cause of action for filing the suit. The
defendant also denied any transaction with plaintiff. The defendant
-- 2 of 4 --
SJ 209 of 2019 .. J/3 .. in Suit 1923-2013
also raised the issues regarding maintainability of the suit and denied
any written contract. It therefore, seems that it would be appropriate to
grant leave to defend to the defendant. No prejudice will cause to the
plaintiff if the leave to defend is granted to the defendant. However, if
the defendant is not granted any opportunity to defend the suit, it will
be defendant who will suffer irreparable loss and therefore it is
necessary to grant leave to defend. Considering the nature of
transaction, it seems that conditional leave to defend should be granted
to defendant. I, therefore, proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Conditional leave is granted to defendant to defend the suit.
2. The defendant shall deposit the amount of Rs.10,00,000/ to be
paid to the plaintiff within 2 months of this order.
3. On payment of amount of Rs.10,00,000/ the defendant shall file
his written statement.
4. The Summons for Judgement 209 of 2019 is disposed off.
5. Parties to bear their own costs.
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 14032022 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
Dictated on : 14032022
Transcribed on : 14032022
checked on : 15032022
Signed on : 15032022
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 3 of 4 --
SJ 209 of 2019 .. J/4 .. in Suit 1923-2013
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
15.03.2022 at 04.50 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
14.03.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 15.03.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 15.03.2022
-- 4 of 4 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.