Partly allowed

Paresh Khandwala v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Nov 2005APP/1013/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the impugned order of the trial judge for not affording the appellant an opportunity to inspect contract notes relied upon. The appeal is dismissed in part and the summons for judgment is restored for fresh consideration after inspection.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside and the Summons for Judgment is restored for fresh consideration after inspection of contract notes.

Paresh Khandwala Vs Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. and 3… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶2

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 APPEAL NO.1013 of 2005
 in
 SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.836 OF 2004
 in

¶4

 SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2392 OF 2004

¶5

 Paresh Khandwala .. Appellant
 (Original defendant no.3)
 versus

¶6

 Bajaj Hindusthan Limited & ors .. Respondents

¶7

 Mr.C.S.Balsara a/w Mr.Vivek Kantawala i/b M/s.
 Kantawala & Co for the appellant.

¶8

 Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Counsel a/w Mr.Snehal Shah
 i/b M/s.Dhru & Co for the Respondent no.1

¶9

 Mr.Milind Vasudeo i/b M/s.Rajani & Associates for
 the Respondent no. 3

¶10

CORAM : R.M. LODHA AND
 D.G. KARNIK, JJ

¶11

DATED : 22nd November 2005.

¶12

 P.C.:

¶13

 Admit.

¶14

 2. M/s.Dhru & Co. waives service for
 respondent no.1. M/s.Rajani Associates waives
 service for respondent no.3. Service on the
 respondent nos.2 and 4 is dispensed with being
 formal parties and appeal is heard finally at this

¶15

 stage.

¶16

 3. Interalia, the grievance raised by the
 learned counsel for the appellant in challenging the
 impugned order is that the learned trial Judge
 considered the contract notes which were neither
 produced along with the affidavit nor in respect
 thereof inspection was given to the appellant.
 Rather no opportunity was given to the appellant to
 have their say in respect of contract notes that
 were produced by the plaintiff during the course of
 hearing of Summons for Judgement.

¶17

 3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff
 (respondent no.1) fairly conceded that the

¶18

 inspection of the contract notes upon which reliance
 has been placed by the learned trial Judge was not
 given to the defendants.

¶19

 4. Having reflected over the matter, we are of
 the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained
 and has to be set aside as the learned trial Judge
 took into consideration the contract notes without
 affording an opportunity to the defendants to meet
 the said documents. Admittedly, neither copies of
 the contract notes were given to the defendants nor

¶20

 inspection of the contract notes was provided by the
 plaintiff to the defendants.

¶21

 5. We accordingly set aside the impugned order
 on the short ground afore noticed and restore the
 Summons for Judgement no. 836 of 2004 for fresh
 consideration by the learned trial Judge.

¶22

 6. We record and accept the statement of the
 Counsel for the plaintiff (respondent no.1) that
 inspection of contract notes shall be given to the
 defendants within one week from today.

¶23

 7. Liberty to the defendants to apply to the
 learned trial Judge for filing additional affidavit
 or further material after the inspection of the
 contract notes is completed.

¶24

 8. No costs.

¶25

 (R.M. LODHA, J)

¶26

 (D.G. KARNIK, J)

Paresh Khandwala v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paresh Khandwala v. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs M/S. Khannoco Steel Merchants Pvt.Ltd.

Dr.Durgaprasad Shivdutt Rai Dadhich Vs Angelica M. Fernandes

Vinay a. Rathi Vs Narendra Balubhai Panchal and Ors.

Samir Doshi Vs Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Mafatlal Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Gujrat State Financial Corpn.

lalji dairy and farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs satish k. kothari (huf) and 10 Ors.